West Galveston Bay
Conservation Area Plan
February 2001
Table of Contents
CONSERVATION AREA DESCRIPTION, PLANNING TEAM ................................................................. III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................1
CONSERVATION VISION .......................................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................1
THE CHALLENGE .................................................................................................................................................2
THE SOLUTION .....................................................................................................................................................2
I. CONSERVATION BY DESIGN AND CONSERVATION PLANNING .....................................................3
II. OVERVIEW OF WEST GALVESTON BAY ...............................................................................................4
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................4
HUMAN DIMENSIONS ...........................................................................................................................................4
MANAGED AREAS WITHIN WEST GALVESTON BAY .............................................................................................5
III. CONSERVATION ELEMENTS ...................................................................................................................7
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................7
OVERVIEW OF WETLAND HABITATS ....................................................................................................................7
DESCRIPTIONS OF THE CONSERVATION ELEMENTS ..............................................................................................8
IV. CONSERVATION CHALLENGES AND CAPACITY ............................................................................ 12
ASSESSING CHALLENGES: THREATS AND BIODIVERSITY HEALTH ..................................................................... 12
BIODIVERSITY HEALTH ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................ 12
THREAT ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 13
V. MEASUREMENTS OF SUCCESS ............................................................................................................... 20
PROJECT CAPACITY ........................................................................................................................................... 20
SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................................................... 21
VI. GOALS, STRATEGIES, AND NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................ 22
CONSERVATION GOALS ..................................................................................................................................... 22
CONSERVATION STRATEGIES ............................................................................................................................. 22
ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION NEEDS AND ORGANIZATIONS.............................................................................. 23
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS.......................................................................................................................... 24
REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................. 25
GLOSSARY ......................................................................................................................................................... 30
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................................... 32
APPENDIX A: MAPS ........................................................................................................................................... 33
APPENDIX B: HERITAGE RANKING SYSTEM AND FEDERAL/STATE STATUS SYMBOLS ....................................... 34
APPENDIX C: BIODIVERSITY HEALTH AND VIABILITY RANKING SYSTEM ......................................................... 35
APPENDIX D: THREAT RANKING GUIDELINES ................................................................................................... 36
APPENDIX E: DESCRIPTIONS OF CONSERVATION ELEMENTS AND NESTED ELEMENTS* .................................... 39
APPENDIX F: STAKEHOLDERS AND POTENTIAL PARTNERS ................................................................................ 45
i
Tables and Figures
Figure 1. West Galveston Bay Conservation Area ..............................................................................................1
Table 1. Conservation elements and nested elements .........................................................................................9
Table 2. Viability and biodiversity health .......................................................................................................... 13
Table 3. Summary of active threats to conservation elements ......................................................................... 14
Table 4. Summary of historical threats causing persistent stress .................................................................... 15
Table 5. The Nature Conservancy’s capacity for conservation in West Galveston Bay ................................ 20
Table 6. Conservation strategies and affected conservation elements ............................................................. 23
ii
Conservation Area Description, Planning Team
Counties: Brazoria, Galveston
Maps:
QUADNAME: QUADCODE: QUADNAME: QUADCODE:
MISSOURI CITY 2909555 SAN LUIS PASS 2909511
ALMEDA 2909554 SEA ISLE 2909521
JULIFF 2909544 HITCHCOCK 2909531
ROSHARON 2909534 DICKINSON 2909541
DANBURY 2909523 LEAGUE CITY 2909551
LIVERPOOL 2909533 LA PORTE 2909561
MANVEL 2909543 MORGAN POINT
PEARLAND 2909553 BACLIFF 2909458
PARK PLACE 2909563 TEXAS CITY 2909448
PASADENA 2909562 VIRGINIA POINT 2909438
FRIENDSWOOD 2909552 LAKE COMO 2909428
ALGOA 2909542 GALVESTON 2909437
MUSTANG BAYOU 2909532 PORT BOLIVAR 2909447
HOSKINS MOUND 2909522 SMITH POINT 2909457
CHRISTMAS POINT 2909512 THE JETTIES 2909436
Boundary description: Site extends from the western portion of Galveston Bay on the east, southwest
to about 3 km south of Drum Bay. Natural habitats include fresh and salt marsh, coastal
prairie, coastal plain streams, tidal habitats, beach, barrier island, and other typical gulf shore
habitats. Substantial urban and agricultural development exists within the site.
Plan Contributors:
Ron Bisbee, Refuge Manager/Texas Mid-Coast National Wildlife Refuge Complex, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Mike Lang, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge
Bill Moore, Volunteer Outreach Coordinator, The Nature Conservancy of Texas
Diane Schenke, East Texas Program Manager, The Nature Conservancy of Texas
Plan Compiled by: Lacey Halstead, Conservation Area Planner, The Nature Conservancy of Texas
Date: February 26, 2002
iii
Executive Summary
Conservation Vision
The West Galveston Bay Conservation Area is part of Texas’ biologically rich coastline. Barrier
islands buffer the bays and marshes from the turbulent Gulf of Mexico. The patchwork of interlaced
bays and marshes teems with marine life, birds, and small mammals. Saline and brackish marshes
connect the bay system to the coastal prairies and freshwater marshes farther inland, important
habitat for native plants and animals and for numerous species of migrating birds. This area has a
rich natural history, but also a history of human perturbations and habitat loss. Many ecological
processes and natural communities are still in place; however, others have ceased to exist or are in
danger of disappearing. The Nature Conservancy of Texas will work to ensure that the conservation
area remains an ecologically functional landscape, with intact tallgrass prairies, coastal marshes and
open water estuaries. The Conservancy will collaborate with local communities to encourage water
conservation, habitat preservation, and pollution controls that help sustain the native and migratory
species of West Galveston Bay.
Introduction
The West Galveston Bay Conservation Area is located within the 600-square-mile Galveston Bay
estuary system, one of the most productive estuaries in Texas and a prized locale for commercial and
recreational activity. The conservation area extends from the northeast end of West Bay, just
southwest of Interstate 45, westward, ending just west of Drum Bay (Figure 1). This 77,273-hectare
(190,943-acre) area is part of a larger system of connected bays (open water estuaries) and associated
habitats within the Galveston Bay watershed. This watershed serves not only native plants and wildlife
but also the Houston metroplex and numerous surrounding cities and towns.
Figure 1. West Galveston Bay Conservation Area
The myriad habitats within West Galveston
Bay all play a role in maintaining the health
Te x as
C i ty
of the ecosystem. Upland prairies slow
Te
x as
C ity
rainwater and runoff, trapping some
Di k
e sediment and contaminants within plant
roots. Marsh plants continue the work,
Jone s filtering out more sediment and pollutants,
Liv er po ol B ay
helping keep the bay waters clear and
pollutants and excess nutrients to a
Gal v es ton
minimum. Freshwater marshes reduce the
Ch oco la te
t Ba
y frequency and severity of flooding, and their
Bay es
200
4
W
3005 ability to store and slowly release water
FM FM
Bast ro p
helps maintain stable salinity in the estuary
B ay system. Both freshwater and saltwater
marshes slow erosion and even contribute to
San Lu is Pa ss
soil accretion, actually building new land
Ch ristm a s Ba y along the shoreline. Prairies and marshes are
"
!3 3 2 Drum B ay
not the only protectors of the system: oyster
reefs in the bay slow waves and protect the
shoreline from erosion. Oyster reefs also
provide food and refuge for many other
estuarine animals, some commercially or recreationally important. Bays and coastal wetlands support
an abundance of aquatic wildlife, including blue crabs, oysters, shrimp, and finfish, all critical
1
elements of the food web. Submerged aquatic grasses in the bay and in wetlands act as refuge and
nursery areas for estuarine and marine species. The bay and wetlands serve as nursery grounds for
more than 95 percent of the recreational and commercial fish species found in the Gulf of Mexico,
helping Galveston Bay rank second nationally in seafood production. Rare diamondback terrapins and
endangered Kemp’s Ridley sea turtles have been found in the bay waters. The conservation area is
well known for its excellent birding. Three-quarters of the bird species found in North America use
some part of Galveston Bay as a migratory stopover site or breeding area. The shoreline of the
conservation area has been identified as critical habitat by the Western Hemisphere Reserve Shorebird
Network, and its wetlands are the winter home for large duck populations. The federally-endangered
piping plover nests in the bay area, as do state-listed white-faced ibises and reddish egrets. The
uplands of West Galveston Bay are a mosaic of salty prairie, sandy prairie, and coastal tallgrass
prairie. These prairies provide important stopover and wintering habitat for a wide variety of grassland
birds, a rapidly declining group of migratory birds. The prairies also support many regionally endemic
plants, such as Texas windmill grass, Texas prairie-dawn, and coastal gayfeather.
The Challenge
Since the 1950’s, the Galveston Bay system has lost at least 17 percent of its wetlands and over 50%
of its tallgrass prairie. One of the greatest threats to wetlands historically was subsidence of the land
due to groundwater withdrawal. Although subsidence has returned to background levels, negative
effects persist. In addition, sea level has been steadily rising over the past 15 years, contributing to the
continued drop in the coverage of emergent marshes. Wetlands are also drained, filled and otherwise
altered for residential and commercial development, flood control, and agriculture (especially
livestock grazing and rice production). Agricultural conversions were the primary source of lost
coastal tallgrass prairie in the past. Today, such conversions are being replaced by residential and
urban development--a decidedly more permanent habitat change. Fire suppression has allowed the
encroachment of woody native and non-native plants, including Chinese tallow, into prairie formerly
dominated by grasses. Pollution is an increasing problem for West Galveston Bay as well. Two types
of pollution occur here, point source and non-point source. Point source pollution comes from a
discrete location, such as a permitted industrial discharge site. Non-point source pollution comes
from a number of different and often scattered sources (e.g., oil and grease washed off city streets,
combined with pesticide, herbicide and fertilizer runoff from lawns and agricultural fields).
The Solution
The West Galveston Bay Conservation Area supports a diverse array of aquatic and terrestrial species,
as well as important natural communities. This project offers the opportunity to protect approximately
20 miles of relatively continuous coastal habitat. Within the site and in the larger landscape that
influences the conservation area, the Nature Conservancy will work to protect the natural communities
that characterize this area and support its native species:
Coastal Tallgrass Prairie Open Water Estuary
Saltwater and Brackish Wetlands Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Freshwater Marshes
To protect these communities, the Conservancy will initiate projects and work with partners to:
Protect buffer areas around ecologically intact coastal tallgrass prairie, saltwater, brackish and
freshwater marshes, open water estuaries, and submerged aquatic vegetation.
Help reduce or minimize water pollution within the conservation area.
Maintain or enhance populations of native plant and animal species within West Galveston Bay.
2
I. Conservation by Design and Conservation Planning
The Nature Conservancy's mission is to conserve a set of places that will ensure the long-term survival
of all native life and natural communities—not just those that are threatened. We call these places
conservation areas. A set of such areas is a portfolio. We plan to protect portfolios within and across
ecoregions: large areas of land or water defined by their distinct climate, geology and native species.
Using our collaborative, science-based approach to conservation, The Nature Conservancy, along with
our partners, creates conservation plans for each ecoregion. We then develop conservation area plans
for each conservation area in the ecoregional portfolio. These plans collectively form a conservation
blueprint that guides the Conservancy’s actions. There are 4 fundamental, related parts to our
conservation approach: setting priorities, developing strategies, taking action, and measuring success.
The Nature Conservancy sets its landscape-scale or multi-site conservation priorities through the
process of ecoregional planning. There are 5 steps in this process:
Identifying Conservation Elements. Ecoregional planning teams made up of Conservancy staff
and partners identify the species, natural communities and ecosystems in a given ecoregion and
select as conservation elements those that best capture its biodiversity.
Gathering Information. The teams gather data about the conservation elements, such as location
and species viability.
Setting Goals. Ecoregional planning teams set goals for each conservation element. Setting
conservation goals involves determining how much of a particular element is needed to ensure its
long-term survival. Goals also include how elements need to be distributed across the landscape.
Assessing Viability. The team assesses the viability of each conservation element and identifies
the healthiest examples of each element.
Assembling Portfolios. All this information is analyzed by the teams, and used to design a
network of conservation areas (or portfolio) that, if protected, will ensure the preservation of
biodiversity within the ecoregion.
The Nature Conservancy uses conservation area planning to develop site-specific conservation
strategies and to plan for action and measuring success at each conservation area. This document
details that process. Conservation area planning follows what we call the 5-S Framework:
Systems. The conservation area planning team identifies the species and natural communities that
will be the conservation elements for the area. This is done using element lists developed during
ecoregional planning and modifying the list to include site-specific conservation elements.
Stresses. The team determines how conservation elements are compromised, such as by habitat
reduction or fragmentation, or alteration of natural hydrological regimes.
Sources. The team then identifies and ranks the sources of stress for each element. The analysis of
stresses and sources together make up the threat assessment.
Strategies. An important step in the process is finding practical, cooperative ways to mitigate or
eliminate the identified threats and enhance biodiversity.
Success. Each plan outlines methods for assessing our effectiveness in reducing threats and
improving biodiversity. This is usually accomplished by monitoring progress toward established
biological and programmatic goals.
3
II. Overview of West Galveston Bay
Introduction
The West Galveston Bay Conservation Area (Appendix A) falls within 2 ecoregions, one terrestrial
(Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes) and one marine (Northern Gulf of Mexico). The West Galveston
Bay Conservation Area was determined by the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes ecoregional planning
team to be a functional landscape, an area that still has most its key ecological components (e.g.,
abiotic features, plant and animal species) and processes in place and operating in balance (Poiani et
al. 2000, see also Glossary). While it was included as an ecoregional conservation area, West
Galveston Bay was not within the portfolio of high priority areas in that ecoregional plan (The Nature
Conservancy of Texas 2001a). The Northern Gulf of Mexico ecoregional plan did not include West
Galveston Bay as a conservation area (The Nature Conservancy 2000c), partly because the bay portion
of the site has been significantly altered and because there are few known occurrences of the
conservation elements selected for that ecoregional plan located here. This does not mean that West
Galveston Bay is unimportant. There remains much biological diversity here, and the interdependence
of the bays, ocean, and inland systems links the health of this area to many others. Furthermore, within
the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes ecoregional plan, the West Galveston Bay Conservation Area is
one of an envisioned network of ecologically functional landscapes (The Nature Conservancy of Texas
2001a). To effectively conserve biodiversity within the ecoregion, we must attend in some fashion to
every conservation area within it.
The preliminary West Galveston Bay Conservation Area boundary was delineated by the West Gulf
Prairies and Marshes ecoregional planners; this terrestrially-focused group excluded the open water
estuary. However, from a site-based perspective, it is clear that the open water estuary is integrally
linked to the coastal communities around it; therefore, it was included within the final conservation
area boundary (Appendix A, Map 2 for a comparison). The conservation area is located in Galveston
County and stretches from just south of Drum Bay to the northeastern end of West Bay, north of Jones
Bay. The bay area is a shallow, open water estuary dominated by oyster reefs and bare substrate.
Seagrasses, habitat for numerous juvenile invertebrates and fishes, once spanned most of the
conservation area but now are found mainly in
Christmas Bay (Appendix A, Map 7); these small
The colonial waterbird guild consists of herons,
areas, because of their relative scarcity, are crucial
habitat for aquatic species. Around the open water ibises and egrets (Ciconiformes), pelicans
estuary, tidal flats and saltwater, brackish, and (Pelecaniformes), and gulls, skimmers and terns
freshwater marshes provide habitat for migratory and (Charadriformes). The shorebird guild includes
resident shorebirds and colonial waterbirds.
birds like plovers (Charadriformes), sanderlings
Numerous waterbirds nest on rookery islands in and
around West Bay. Brown pelicans (Pelicanus and sandpipers (Charadriformes) that prefer un-
occidentalis), reddish egrets (Egretta rufescens), and vegetated wetland habitats.
white-faced ibises (Plegadis chihi) are frequent to common. The Texas diamond-backed terrapin
(Malaclemys terrapin ssp. littoralis), a conservation element in the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes
Ecoregional Plan (The Nature Conservancy of Texas 2001a) can be found within the conservation
area as well. Uplands of the area are composed of a mosaic of salty prairie, sandy prairie, and coastal
tallgrass prairie. These prairies provide important winter habitat for grassland birds, another
ecoregional conservation element (The Nature Conservancy of Texas 2001a).
Human Dimensions
The conservation area falls within the Galveston-Texas City Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and
Galveston county. The city of Galveston lies partly within the conservation area and is a major
influence on the site. There are 250,158 people living in Galveston county (an area co-determinant
4
with Galveston-Texas City MSA with regard to United States Census Bureau figures [United States
Census Bureau 2000]). Of these, 57,247 reside in Galveston city (United States Census Bureau 2000).
Though physically removed from the conservation area, Houston’s 1.8 million residents cannot be
disregarded, particularly when considering water use and water quality, both important factors in
ecosystem health.
In 1990, median annual household incomes in Galveston county and city were $29,466 and $20,825,
respectively (United States Census Bureau 1990). About 13% of the county’s residents are below
poverty level; in Galveston city, the figure is 24% (United States Census Bureau 1990). Major area
industries, by number of employees, are: health services, retail trade, educational services, finance,
insurance and real estate, other professional services, manufacturing (durable and non-durable goods),
construction, and personal services (United States Census Bureau 1990). Unemployment rates for the
county and city are about 5% (April 2001 [Houston-Galveston Area Council 2001]) and 9%,
respectively (1990 [United States Census Bureau 1990]).
The median age of residents in the county and city is 33 (United States Census Bureau 1990); 62% are
between the ages of 19 and 64 (United States Census Bureau 1990). Among county residents 25 years
and older, 48% have a high school education, and 12% have graduated from college (United States
Census Bureau 1990). In Galveston city, 70% have a high school education, and 21% have a college
degree (United States Census Bureau 1990).
Galveston Bay and the surrounding areas already receive considerable attention from local, state, and
federal resource management entities. The Environmental Protection Agency-sponsored (EPA)
interagency Gulf of Mexico Program, the EPA and Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Galveston Bay National Estuary Program, Texas General Land Office, Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and others have already made great strides in conserving
and enhancing resources in and around the conservation area. Through these and similar efforts, local
communities have gained an increased awareness and appreciation of the ecosystem in which they
live; this awareness aids in public support of conservation efforts. However, area residents are
generally younger and less affluent than the average conservation supporter. Outreach efforts will
need to be tailored to this group, and the level of active, individual involvement in conservation efforts
will likely be low to medium. It is reasonable to expect residents to support and engage in
conservation efforts that do not involve significant personal expenditures of time or money. For
additional stakeholder information, see Appendix F.
Managed Areas within West Galveston Bay
Significant portions of the conservation area are already protected by land management agencies or
other organizations. Following is a description of each protected area, in order of size from largest to
smallest. For locations, see Appendix A, Map 7.
Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
This 17,559-ha (43,388-ac) refuge on the shores of Bastrop, Christmas, and Drum Bays harbors a mix
of saline and coastal tallgrass and salty prairie, intertidal flats, freshwater and saltwater wetlands,
ephemeral potholes, saline lakes, and one intermittent freshwater stream. The refuge supports resident
and migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, colonial waterbirds, neotropical migrants, and grassland birds.
Large numbers of sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis) winter on the refuge. Its wetlands are home to
numerous fishes, mammals and invertebrates endemic to the region. Jaguarundi (Herpailurus
jaguarundi) have been reported on the refuge, and diamondback terrapins have been sighted here as
well (Appendix A, Map 7).
5
Christmas Bay Coastal Preserve-Texas General Land Office
This preserve is a shallow 1,689-ha (4,173-ac) embayment in the southwestern corner of the
conservation area. The preserve is owned by the General Land Office and leased to the Texas Parks
and Wildlife Department under the Gulf Ecological Management System. The preserve is designated
by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission as a State Scientific Area (Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department 2000). The preserve harbors migratory and resident waterfowl, shorebirds, and colonial
waterbirds. Christmas Bay supports a high diversity of finfish and has been designated a nursery area
by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 2000). The Texas
quahog (Mercenaria texana), an edible hard clam, inhabits the shallow perimeters of Christmas Bay.
The preserve also has 101 ha (250 ac) of seagrass beds, primarily shoalgrass (Halodule beaudetteii),
with lesser amounts of turtle grass (Thalassia testudina). These are the largest expanses of seagrass
within the conservation area. Christmas Bay also has oyster reefs and salt marsh habitat (Appendix A,
Map 7).
Galveston Island State Park, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
This 815-ha (2,013-ac) park is in the city of Galveston on Galveston Island. Spanning the island from
coast to bay, the park receives heavy recreational use, though many coastal plant and animal species
are found here. Colonial waterbirds and shorebirds, mottled ducks (Anas fulvigula), mallard ducks
(Anas platyrhynchos), and marsh rabbits (Sylvilagus aquaticus) can be found in the park (Texas Parks
and Wildlife Department 2001). Spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus), sandtrout (Cynoscion
arenarius), redfish (Sciaenops ocellatus), black drum (Pogonias cromis), croaker (Micropogonias
undulatus), and flounder (Fam. Bothidae) are found offshore (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
2001).
Pierce Marsh Preserve-Galveston Bay Foundation
This 551-ha (1,361-ac) preserve was donated to The Nature Conservancy in 1987 by Clive Runnells
and the Pierce Estate. The Nature Conservancy retains a conservation easement on this property, and
the Galveston Bay Foundation owns and manages it. The primary focus of the management here is
wetland habitat restoration and enhancement. The preserve's marsh and shallow estuarine habitats
serve as a nursery for young finfish and shellfish. An abundance of wildlife use the site for foraging
and shelter. The area supports a large waterfowl population in the winter as well as a variety of year-
round bird species. Pierce Marsh is located near waterbird rookery islands and thus serves as an
important feeding area during nesting season. Shorebirds and wading birds utilize the flats and shallow
marsh ponds. Wintering waterfowl include pintails (Anas acuta), wigeon (Anas americana), gadwall
(Anas strepera), green-winged teal (Anas carolinensis), and snow geese (Chen caerulescens). The
saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) marshes and other open water areas are extremely valuable
to estuarine organisms such as fish, crabs, and shrimp.
North Deer Island Sanctuary-Audubon Society
The Houston Audubon Society owns about 4 ha (10 ac) on North Deer Island in West Bay. This
sanctuary is made of saltwater marsh and uplands (some with dredge spoil deposits). The island is a
nesting site for colonial waterbirds, including roseate spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja), reddish egret, and white-
faced ibis, all identified as species of conservation concern by the state of Texas.
6
III. Conservation Elements
Introduction
As the first step in its conservation planning process, the Conservancy evaluates conservation needs at
an ecoregional scale (The Nature Conservancy 2000a, 2000b). Scientists and land managers develop
portfolios of conservation areas within an ecoregion. These portfolios represent the full distribution
and diversity of conservation elements--native species, natural communities and ecological systems--
within each ecoregion. Typically, conservation elements are rare in part or all of their range, or fairly
common but decreasing in viability. Because conservation elements are usually at or below optimum
numbers, part of the ecoregional planning process involves establishing goals for their number and
distribution across the ecoregion (The Nature Conservancy 2000b). The planning work that the
Conservancy does at the local (conservation area) level must serve 2 main purposes: 1) help us reach
the biological goals set out in the ecoregional plan and 2) address any biological, socio-cultural,
economic, or political issues unique to the conservation area.
The Nature Conservancy’s methodology allows selection of conservation elements at various scales
(e.g., species, guild, community) but also limits the number of elements in a conservation area plan to
8. Because the conservation area contains far more than 8 elements of conservation interest, the team
took care to choose conservation elements at a coarse enough scale to encompass the diverse guilds
and individual species of conservation concern. This effort produced a list of 5 natural communities:
Coastal Tallgrass Prairie
Saltwater and Brackish Wetlands
Freshwater Marshes
Open Water Estuary
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
To address key species within and across these communities, plants and animals were nested under
each of the broader conservation elements (Table 1). Nested elements, as defined by the Conservancy,
are imperiled, ecologically linked to a conservation element, and can be conserved via strategies
designed for that conservation element (e.g., allowing fires to burn in coastal prairie maintains native
species composition and vegetation structure, thus providing habitat for grassland birds).
Overview of Wetland Habitats
Wetlands have been variously classified. Within this plan, we have used the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service wetlands classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979) to delineate wetland systems,
with minor alterations, which will be noted below. Systems are determined primarily on the basis of
hydrology, substrate, and vegetation. In brief, the categories addressed in this plan include open water
estuaries, freshwater, saltwater and brackish marshes, and submerged aquatic vegetation.
Estuarine wetlands contain a mixture of freshwater and ocean water. Major estuarine systems include
open water estuaries, saltwater and brackish marshes, intertidal flats, and submerged aquatic beds.
Salt marshes are estuarine systems with emergent vegetation. While there are a limited number of
plant species present, salt marshes are extremely productive communities. The inner marsh zone,
which is flooded most of the time, is composed almost entirely of grasses in the genus Spartina
(cordgrasses). Plant diversity within the salt marsh community tends to increase with distance from the
ocean, with dominance shifting to species commonly associated with brackish or freshwater marshes.
7
Brackish tidal marshes are river-associated estuarine environments found upstream from salt marshes.
When tides are highest salinities may be around 3% (roughly that of ocean water) and .05% or less
(approximately that of freshwater) during the lowest tide. The areas most affected by salts are the least
diverse. These communities are composed mostly of cattails (Typha sp.) and bulrushes (Scirpa sp.).
Vegetation farther upstream is similar to that of a freshwater marsh.
Within this plan, we have combined the subclasses of saltwater and brackish marsh, primarily because
these systems support many species in common and, more significantly, because they share many
threats and conservation needs. We have included intertidal flats in this category because of their
proximity to these areas and the interdependence of flats and marshes within the conservation area.
Because of the inclusion of un-vegetated wetlands, we have changed the category label to ―saltwater
and brackish wetlands.‖
Freshwater marsh: Across a freshwater marsh, the following vegetational sequence is commonly seen:
"wet-meadow", or "sedge-zone," persistent emergents, non-persistent emergents, aquatic beds, and
deep open water. Wet meadows are almost always saturated, though rarely flooded. This zone is
dominated by grasses, sedges (Carex sp. and Cyperus sp.), and various forbs. The zone of persistent
emergents contains cattail and bulrush that remain standing above the water's surface throughout the
year. The non-persistent emergent zone is characterized by plants that fall below the surface of the
water at the end of each growing season. Beyond this zone lie submerged aquatic beds.
Submerged aquatic vegetation: Submerged aquatic vegetation can be found in marine, estuarine and
freshwater wetland systems. Submerged aquatic vegetation includes seagrasses and tidal freshwater
grasses that grow below the water surface.
Descriptions of the Conservation Elements
Coastal Tallgrass Prairie
Coastal tallgrass prairie is found along the coast of Texas and Louisiana. Similar in many ways to the
tallgrass prairie of the Midwestern United States, coastal prairie is maintained by natural processes of
fire and drought, which lend a competitive advantage to herbaceous species over woody plants. In
healthy coastal prairies, a diverse assortment of wildflowers thrive – nearly 1,000 plant species have
been identified thus far (The Nature Conservancy of Texas 2001a). Within the conservation area are
found several less common endemic wildflowers: Texas prairie-dawn (Hymenoxys texana), coastal
gayfeather (Liatris bracteata), threeflower broomweed (Thurovia triflora) and Texas wilkommia
(Wilkommia texana) (Texas Conservation Data Center 2002).
Characteristic grass species include little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), brownseed crowngrass
(Paspalum plicatulum), yellow indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), few-flower witchgrass
(Dichanthelium oligosanthes), slender crowngrass (Paspalum setaceum), and Texas windmill grass
(Chloris texensis) (For a more complete listing, see Vegetation Communities, Appendix E). Numerous
sedges occur in wet sites within the prairie zone. Today, few expanses of intact coastal tallgrass prairie
remain; many have been converted to rice fields or have been altered by encroaching woody
vegetation, such as Macartney rose (Rosa bracteata), sweet acacia (Acacia farnesiana), southern
bayberry (Morella cerifera), Chinese tallow (Sapium sebiferum) and baccharis (Baccharis sp.)
(Appendix A, Map 5) (Nature Serve 2002).
8
Table 1. Conservation elements and nested elements
Nested Element, Scientific Name Nested Element, Common Name Global/State
Rank,
Conservation
Status*
Coastal Tallgrass Prairie
Panicum virgatum - Tripsacum dactyloides - Switchgrass - Eastern Gammagrass - G1
(Panicum hemitomon) Herbaceous Vegetation (Maidencane) Herbaceous Vegetation
Schizachyrium scoparium - Paspalum plicatulum - Little Bluestem - Brownseed Crowngrass - G1
Sorghastrum nutans - Dichanthelium oligosanthes - Yellow Indiangrass - Few-flower Witchgrass -
Paspalum setaceum - Symphyotrichum pratense Slender Crowngrass - Western Silvery Aster
Alfisol Herbaceous Vegetation Alfisol Herbaceous Vegetation
Chloris texensis Texas windmill grass G2S2
Hymenoxys texana Texas prairie-dawn G2S2, LE SE
Liatris bracteata Coastal gayfeather G2S2
Thurovia triflora Threeflower broomweed G2S2
Willkommia texana Texas willkommia G3S3
Herpailurus jaguarundi Jaguarundi G4S1, LE SE
Grassland bird guild na
Freshwater Marshes na
Grassland bird guild na
Saltwater and Brackish Wetlands na
Sarcocornia perennis – Batis maritima – Distichlis Woody-glasswort - Saltwort - Saltgrass Dwarf- G4
spicata Dwarf-shrubland shrubland
Schizachyrium scoparium ssp littorale – Coastal Seaside Bluestem Coastal Herbaceous G1?
Herbaceous Vegetation Vegetation
Schizachyrium scoparium ssp littorale – Paspalum Seaside Bluestem - Gulfdune Crowngrass G3?
monostachyum Herbaceous Vegetation Herbaceous Vegetation
Spartina alterniflora – Distichlis spicata – Spartina Saltmarsh Cordgrass - Saltgrass - Saltmeadow G4?
patens Mesohaline Tidal Herbaceous Vegetation Cordgrass Mesohaline Tidal Herbaceous
Vegetation
Spartina alterniflora – Juncus roemerianus - Saltmarsh Cordgrass - Black Needlerush – G5
Distichlis spicata Zone SaltTidal Herbaceous Saltgrass Louisianian Zone Salt Tidal
Vegetation Herbaceous Vegetation
Spartina spartinae Herbaceous Vegetation Gulf Cordgrass Herbaceous Vegetation G4
Charadrius melodus Piping plover G3S2, LT ST
Colonial waterbird colonies-wading birds na
Malaclemys terrapin littoralis Texas diamondback terrapin** G4T3S3
Open Water Estuary
†
Crassostrea virginica Oyster reefs G5
Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle G1S1, LE SE
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Halodule beaudettei Shoalgrass** G5SR
Ruppia maritima Widgeon grass** G5SR
Thalassia testudina Turtlegrass** G4G5SR
*For an explanation of Global and State Ranks and Conservation Status, see Appendix B.
Nested elements in shaded rows have been designated as conservation elements for this area within the Gulf
Coast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregional Plan (The Nature Conservancy of Texas 2001a).
**These species, while not rare across their range, are uncommon or decreasing within the conservation area
†
Oyster reefs are included as a nested element because they are a reliable indicator of ecosystem viability.
9
Freshwater Marshes
Freshwater emergent wetlands are located mainly in areas unaffected by saltwater except during major
storms (Cowardin et al. 1979, Shipley and Keisling 1994). Emergent plants include cattails, bulrushes,
burheads (Echinodorus sp.), arrowheads (Sagittaria sp.), and common reed (Phragmites australis). A
still higher woody zone may include trees and shrubs like black willow (Salix nigra), buttonbush
(Cephalanthus occidentalis), and baccharis. The edges of less permanently flooded marshes might
have bushy bluestem (Andropogon glomeratus) and other grasses, spikerushes (Eleocharis sp.), and
sedges, as well as the shrubs and trees mentioned above.
Freshwater marshes are at substantial risk from nutrification, incompatible development, and altered
hydrology. These habitats have also been greatly impacted by invasive species, such as Eurasian
milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and Chinese tallow. In some places, these invasive species comprise
more than 50% of the vegetation (The Nature Conservancy 2000c). Freshwater wetlands have
experienced the greatest loss in acreage overall within the site (Shipley and Keisling 1994). Most
losses are attributable to land subsidence, channelization, conversion to agriculture (rice farming and
grazing), and urban/rural development. Although past losses have been dramatic, within the last 2
decades, annual wetland losses have declined (Dahl and Johnson 1991).
Saltwater and Brackish Wetlands
Saltwater and brackish marshes once lined the coastline around West Bay; despite significant habitat
loss, they still occur across much of the shoreline (Appendix A, Map 5). Intertidal flats are included
within this category: although vegetation is sparse, plants like saltwort and glasswort (Sarcocornia
perennis) do occur (White and Paine 1992). There are scattered un-vegetated tidal flats across the site,
mainly on Galveston Island. Intertidal flats are important habitat for members of the shorebird guild,
including the threatened piping plover (Charadrius melodus). The United States Fish and Wildlife
Service has designated about 474 ha (1,172 ac) at the west end of the island as critical plover habitat
(Appendix A, Map 7).
Dominant species in saltwater marshes include smooth cordgrass, saltwort, saltgrass (Distichlis
spicata), and glasswort. Saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens) and Gulf cordgrass (Spartina
spartinae) occur sporadically in saltwater marshes at higher elevations, although these 2 species are
more abundant in brackish marshes (White and Paine 1992). Brackish marshes are generally
dominated by saltmeadow cordgrass and saltgrass (Shipley and Keisling 1994). While vegetation may
be fairly uniform, coastal marshes are highly biodiverse, harboring numerous micro- and
macroinvertebrates, fishes, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. Coastal marshes are integral to
maintaining water quality and mitigating storm surge from the Gulf of Mexico. The abundant
commercial and recreational fisheries along the coast also depend on these wetlands, as they provide
the critical nursery and spawning ground for many species of finfish and shellfish. It is estimated that
over 95% of marine species in the Gulf of Mexico rely on coastal marshes for their survival (Shipley
and Keisling 1994).
Open Water Estuary
The open water portion of the conservation area encompasses West Bay (and smaller estuaries) from
its mouth south through Drum Bay. This estuary was not identified in the Northern Gulf of Mexico
ecoregional plan as a priority site (The Nature Conservancy 2000c). However, because of its
interdependent relationship with the wetlands of the conservation area, we have included the open
water estuary as a conservation element in this plan. This inclusion necessitated expansion of the
conservation area boundary beyond the preliminary delineation given in the Gulf Coast Prairies and
Marshes ecoregional plan (Appendix A, Map 2).
10
The open water estuary is seasonal or permanent habitat for numerous invertebrates, fish, and
amphibians. Endangered Kemp’s ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys kempii) have been sighted here
(Appendix A, Map 7). Most recreational and commercial fisheries, while below historic levels, have
returned to viable states, thanks to careful management by state and federal agencies. Oyster reefs
have withstood the effects of dredging and boat traffic and seem to be relatively stable within the
conservation area, although pollution in the bay still forces seasonal fishery closures (Shipley and
Keisling 1994, Texas Dpeartment of Health 2000). Most Texas-harvested oysters come from
Galveston Bay and its sub-bays. Oysters (Crassotrea virginica), blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus), and
shrimp (Penaeus aztecas, P. setiferus) make up the larger part of the area’s commercial catch; finfish
comprise only about 5% (Shipley and Keisling 1994). Southern flounder, black drum (Pogonias
cromis), mullet (Mugil cephalus, M. curema), and sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus) are the
top finfish by landing (Green et al. 1992). Also, many commercial species caught off-shore spend part
of their life cycles in the bay (Shipley and Keisling 1994).
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Submerged aquatic vegetation found in the conservation area includes species sometimes referred to
collectively as ― polyhaline seagrasses,‖ and sometimes as ―seagrasses‖ and ―tidal freshwater grasses.‖
All the species inhabit waters with at least some salinity, and all species found here face similar
threats; therefore they have been included under the umbrella of submerged aquatic vegetation. Using
the narrower classifications, the seagrass species within the conservation area are shoalgrass (Halodule
beaudettei) and turtlegrass (Thalassia testudina); and the tidal freshwater grass species is widgeon
grass (Ruppia maritima) (Pulich and White 1991, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 2001).
Salinity tolerance of the 3 species is as follows: turtlegrass 3.5 –60 ppt (optimum 24-35), shoalgrass
12-35 ppt, and widgeon grass 2-70 ppt (Godfrey and Wooten 1979). These plants withstand constant
wave motion, requiring substantial anchoring root systems and dense mats of leaves. This structure
aids in slowing water flow; as a result sediments settle within the beds, creating shoreline over time.
The thick vegetation provides shade, moderates water temperature, and gives refuge to numerous
micro and macroinvertebrates and fishes (Rozas and Minello 1998).
Submerged aquatic vegetation provides a vital link in the maintenance of species diversity and
secondary production throughout the Gulf of Mexico. Changes in extent and composition of
submerged aquatic vegetation directly affect finfish and shrimp nurseries and waterfowl that forage in
these beds (Rozas and Minello 1998). Submerged aquatic vegetation can also be an indicator of
system health, because the plants are sensitive to any factor that changes light availability, particularly
nutrient enrichment, eutrophication, and sedimentation (The Nature Conservancy 2000c). Once fairly
common across Galveston Bay, seagrasses are now found almost exclusively in Christmas Bay
(Appendix A, Map 5). From about 1955 to 1989, the distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation in
Galveston Bay decreased 85% (1,471 ha or 3,635 ac), to about 283 ha (700 ac) (White et al. 1993).
The most significant losses occurred within the conservation area. West Bay lost nearly 890 ha (2,200
ac) of shoalgrass and widgeon grass (Pulich and White 1991). In Christmas Bay, seagrass extent has
fluctuated since the mid-1970’s but by 1989 had increased slightly, to 156 ha (385 ac) (Pulich and
White 1991). It is noteworthy that seagrasses have thrived mainly in managed preserves. It has been
hypothesized that wastewater discharge, dredging, and chemical releases have contributed to the
marked decline of seagrasses in the Galveston Bay system (Pulich and White 1991).
11
IV. Conservation Challenges and Capacity
Assessing Challenges: Threats and Biodiversity Health
Identifying elements of conservation concern is a preliminary step in planning for conservation action.
The next step is to examine the effect of any threats on the viability of conservation elements and the
biodiversity health of the conservation area. Threats are conditions or activities that negatively impact
conservation elements directly (e.g., digging up rare plants to sell to collectors) or indirectly (e.g., fire
suppression). Viability is the likelihood that an element will persist long-term. Biodiversity health is
the aggregation of the viability of all conservation elements, the likelihood that the area as a whole
will remain ecologically functional over time (The Nature Conservancy 2000a). Threats and viability
are examined within a 10-year time frame, with the understanding that changes occurring during this
period will influence long-term viability and biodiversity health. Biodiversity health and threat
assessments should be completed during the initial conservation planning process and then every 3 to
5 years thereafter, each time projecting another 10 years into the future.
A fundamental premise underlying the Conservancy’s work is that abating or preempting the most
critical threats at a conservation area will improve the long-term viability of conservation elements and
the biodiversity health of the area. Threat abatement is a component of many conservation strategies,
which will be dealt with in section VI. This section outlines the biodiversity health and threat
assessments. These evaluations elucidate the ecological integrity of a site and the causative factors.
This information helps us begin prioritizing conservation action. Subsequent, periodic biodiversity
health and threat assessments aid in evaluation of our conservation success and in future planning.
Biodiversity Health Assessment
To assess biodiversity health, the viability of each element (e.g., coastal prairie) is evaluated, ranked
and the ranks aggregated to create a biodiversity health rank for the conservation area (for detailed
methodology, terminology and rank definitions, see Appendix C). The assessment of viability is based
on 3 viability criteria: size, condition, and landscape context. Size is a measure of the area or
abundance of the conservation element’s occurrence. Condition is an integrated measure of the
composition, structure, and biotic interactions that characterize the occurrence. This includes factors
such as reproduction, age structure, biological composition, structure, and biotic interactions.
Landscape context is an integrated measure of 2 factors: the dominant environmental regimes and
processes that establish and maintain the element, and connectivity.
The current biodiversity health rank is fair to good (Table 2), meaning at or slightly above a minimally
viable threshold (Appendix C). While receiving a similar overall viability rank to other elements, the
coastal tallgrass prairie is the most immediately threatened of the 5 systems. Fire suppression,
overstocking, and introduction of non-native crops, woody plants, and grasses have contributed to a
significant shift in species composition in historic coastal prairies. Conversion to cropland and
rangeland has altered or removed much prairie habitat from the ecosystem. Residential and urban
development is the newest and perhaps most serious threat to the remaining tallgrass prairie. Because
of the degree of alteration and its value as cropland and rangeland—and now, developed land—it is
questionable how much prairie habitat can be recovered. Therefore, the rating for this element may be
better interpreted as poor to fair.
Although development may become the biggest source of wetland habitat loss in the future, rangeland
conversions are the biggest cause of wetland habitat loss to date (Shipley and Keisling 1994). The
extent of emergent wetlands (saltwater, brackish, and freshwater) has declined over the last 15-20
years, due in large part to conversion of these areas to rangeland and cropland, and in some cases,
12
conversion of marshes to open water habitats as sea level rises and coastal lands subside. The
remaining wetlands are in generally good condition, although water diversions, industrial discharge,
wastewater treatment, and other contaminating activities have negatively affected some locales.
Across the landscape, wetland habitats are increasingly fragmented; some wetlands have been or may
soon be cut off from sustainable water flows.
Table 2. Viability and biodiversity health
Conservation Element Viability Size Condition Landscape Overall
Context Viability
Coastal Tallgrass Prairie Poor Fair Fair Fair
Freshwater Wetlands Fair Good Fair Fair
Saltwater and Brackish Wetlands Fair-Good Good Fair Fair-Good
Open Water Estuary Good Fair Good Good
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Good Fair Good Good
Site Biodiversity Health Rank Fair to Good
The open water estuary is at or above a viable threshold; its size has actually increased over time as
former wetlands become open water. Condition is fair overall, with considerable variability across the
conservation area. Like wetlands, the open water estuary is affected by water diversions, pollutants
and nutrient loading in some areas. From 1967 to 1990 phosphorous, nitrates, and chlorophyll
generally decreased across the area; fecal coliform increased (Armstrong and Ward 1994).
Recreational and commercial harvest has contributed to declines in some aquatic species, although
most managed populations appear to be stable or increasing (Green et al. 1992). Ship channels and
marine traffic in the bay are a concern, and they contribute to disturbance, pollution and structural
habitat changes. Some studies have concluded that biodiversity along these waterways is not
significantly lower than in other parts of the open water estuary (Shipley and Keisling 1994, Rozas et
al. 2000). However, water traffic, overharvest and polluting activities are possible contributors to
declines in fishery quality throughout the Galveston Bay system. Upper Bay fisheries (outside the
conservation area) are under a consumption advisory because of high levels of chlordane, dioxins
(both pesticides), and other volatile and semi-volatile compounds (Texas Department of Health 2000).
West Bay and Christmas Bay, farther from the Houston Ship Channel and major tributaries, are not
under consumption advisories.
Submerged aquatic vegetation in and around West Bay has shown a significant decline in coverage
over the past 15-20 years, as well as a shift in species dominance (Pulich and White 1991, White et al,
1993). In the past, a mix of turtlegrass (Thalassia testudina), widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima),
shoalgrass (Halodule beaudettei), and, perhaps, clover grass (Halophilia engelmannii) grew across
the conservation area. Today, remnant communities in Christmas Bay and at isolated locations within
West Bay consist mainly of shoalgrass or widgeon grass, with scarce occurrences of turtlegrass. This
shift may be a result of changing salinities, decreased water circulation , and increased light
attenuation (Pulich and White 1991, Shipley and Keisling 1994).
Threat Assessment
A threat assessment is the identification, evaluation, and ranking of threats that impact conservation
elements (for further methodology and details of the analysis, see Appendix D). Threats are composed
of stresses and sources of stress (or sources). A stress is a process or event with direct negative
consequences on the conservation element (e.g., alteration of water flow through a wetland). The
source of stress is the action or entity that produces a stress (e.g., water impoundments).
13
The planning team must identify and rank the stresses and sources for each of the conservation
elements (Appendix D). Stress ranks and source ranks for individual elements 1) help elucidate the
factors influencing that element and subsequently, the necessary conservation strategies, and 2)
contribute to the analysis of threats for the site. A conservation element’s stress and source rankings
are analyzed together via computer to provide overall threat ranks for the element (Tables 3 and 4).
Once element threat ranks have been generated, threats are analyzed with respect to each other and to
all the conservation elements. This analysis produces an overall threat rank for each element and for
the site as a whole. One important product of a threat assessment is the determination of critical
threats. Critical threats are highly ranked threats that jeopardize the viability of multiple conservation
elements, or that affect one or more elements and are ranked ―Very High.‖ Critical threats necessitate
development of immediate conservation strategies. Several critical threats acting at a site usually
indicate that the site as a whole is highly or very highly threatened.
The overall threat status for this site is high (Tables 3 and 4). Across the site there are 5 critical threats,
4 active and 1 historical. These are the threats that require immediate attention. Other sources of stress
should be monitored and addressed whenever possible. All 5 conservation elements were judged to be
highly stressed, either because they were under pressure from a multitude of sources, or because they
were affected by one or more critical threats. Four of the 5 critical threats directly relate to altered
hydrology and water chemistry (those marked with an *). The 5th threat (development) is an indirect
source of these stresses, along with other stresses. Because there is considerable overlap in the stresses
produced by these critical threats, and because each critical threat affects at least 4 of the 5
conservation elements, strategy design can be very focused.
Table 3. Summary of active threats to conservation elements
Active Threats Across Coastal Freshwater Saltwater and Bay Submerged Overall
Elements Tallgrass Wetlands Brackish System Aquatic Threat
Prairie Wetlands Vegetation Rank
Residential and urban High High High Medium Medium High
development
Construction and operation - High High Medium High High
of ditches, dikes, drainage,
diversion systems, or
waterways*
Urban non-point source - Medium High High High High
pollution *
Municipal wastewater Low Medium High High Medium High
treatment*
Industrial discharge* Low Low Medium Medium Low Medium
Crop production practices Low Medium Medium Low Low Medium
that contribute to water
pollution*
Invasive/alien species High - - - - Medium
Oil or gas drilling* - - Medium Medium Medium Medium
Recreational use - Low Low Medium Medium Medium
Overfishing - - Medium Low Medium Medium
Overstocking or Medium - - - - Low
overgrazing (livestock)
Fire suppression Medium - - - - Low
Threat Status for High High High High High High
Elements and Site
*Directly related to altered hydrology and water chemistry
14
Table 4. Summary of historical threats causing persistent stress
Historical Sources Coastal Freshwater Saltwater Bay Submerged Overall
Across Elements Tallgrass Wetlands and System Aquatic Threat
Prairie Brackish Vegetation Rank
Wetlands
Conversion to Very High Very High Low - - Very
agriculture High
Excessive groundwater Low Low High Low - Medium
withdrawal*
Threat Status for High High Medium Low High
Elements and Site
Critical Threats
Residential and urban development
Development is a primary contributor to habitat fragmentation and loss in coastal prairie, freshwater
marshes, and saltwater and brackish wetlands; and it is effectively irreversible once it has occurred.
The projected growth patterns for the Houston metroplex place most inland areas not already under
protection squarely in the path of urban growth. Much land within the conservation area, particularly
upland tracts, is already so desirable for development that acquisition by land trusts like The Nature
Conservancy is untenable (Diane Schenke, personal communication 2002). For instance, International
Paper holds a 8,094-ha (20,000 ac) expanse of tallgrass prairie and coastal wetlands that has
considerable conservation value. The company has indicated that it will subdivide this property into
about 400-ha (1,00 ac) tracts and auction them off in May 2002. The company recently subdivided and
sold a nearby 4,000-ha (10,000-ac) property this way (Diane Schenke, personal communication 2002).
Residential and urban development are also linked to other salient threats, including industrial
discharge, non-point source pollution, wastewater treatment, water diversions, and fire suppression.
Evidence indicates the growth of urban areas may lower salinities in local estuaries, probably via
increased stormwater runoff from impermeable surfaces (Shipley and Keisling 1994). The effect of
development on estuarine salinity is difficult to tease out, in part because many other activities also
influence salinity (see below for examples).
Construction and operation of ditches, dikes, drainage, diversion systems, or waterways
Many parts of the conservation area have been affected by dredging, ditching, excavation,
impoundments, and diversion systems (Appendix A, Maps 3 and 5). The natural hydrology around
urban areas has been altered by flood control devices, constructed to reduce risk to human populations.
Structures to control freshwater flow, such as dams, reservoirs, irrigation ditches and channels, have
greatly altered the wetlands of this area, in some cases, eliminating marshes, in others, altering water
chemistry or hydrology. The likelihood of removing such structures is very low, although
modifications to existing structures may mitigate harmful effects. Water has also been diverted from
wetlands and marshes for agricultural irrigation.
Construction and maintenance of the navigation channels such as the Houston Ship Channel and the
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway has changed the hydrology and substrate in large portions of Galveston
Bay (Appendix A, Maps 3 and 4), in some cases increasing and in others decreasing natural salinities.
Erosion caused by boat traffic on the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway poses a threat to coastal wetlands.
Increased wave activity caused by passing boats may accelerate erosion rates and contribute to
breaches in the narrow strips of land separating marshes from the Gulf, allowing for an influx of
15
saltwater. While it may be possible to repair some areas by building up the separating strips of land
with dredge spoils or some other means to prevent saltwater intrusion, altered bottom habitat around
dredged areas amounts to habitat loss for some aquatic species such as shrimp (Penaeus sp.) and blue
crab (Callinectus sapidus) (Minello 1999).
All of the aforementioned activities can contribute to changes in salinity within the conservation area,
as well as changes in oxygen content, sediments, bacteria, and suspended particulates in aquatic
systems (Ward and Armstrong 1992, Armstrong and Ward 1994, Shipley and Keisling 1994). These
changes may adversely affect the rich array of estuarine plants, fish, crustaceans and other small
animals (Armstrong and Ward 1994). Many of these species are food for higher order animals like
shorebirds and waterbirds; these guilds may thus be indirectly affected. It has been noted that while
the number of colonial waterbird rookeries in and near the conservation area has increased, the number
of individuals per colony has decreased (Shipley and Keisling 1994); such dispersal is sometimes a
sign of declining food sources.
Urban non-point source pollution
The contribution to pollution in the Galveston Bay system has shifted over the last 30 years: point-
source pollution (industrial and wastewater discharge) has generally decreased, while non-point source
pollution has increased (Newell et al. 1992, Guillen et al. 1994, Shipley and Keisling 1994). While
agriculture contributes to non-point source pollution in the area, urban sources are a much larger
problem (Newelll et al. 1992). Low dissolved oxygen, high bacteria levels, and contamination from
heavy metals and organic compounds are more severe around urban areas (Newelll et al. 1992),
suggesting that urban pollution is a serious threat. Newelll et al. (1992) conducted a comprehensive
analysis of pollution in the bay and concluded that more than 50% of the sediment, oil and grease,
phosphorous, and low oxygen in Galveston Bay came from urban non-point sources. Figures for other
pollutants were similar.
Run-off from streets, yards, and marinas all impact the waters of West Galveston Bay. Residential
septic systems have been cited as moderate to significant contributors to pollution within the
conservation area. Numerous leaks, overflows, and illegal connections to municipal drainage and
stormwater overflow systems have been documented, and more certainly exist (Guillen et al. 1994).
Studies conducted by the City of Houston revealed numerous illegal sewage connections to storm
drainage systems, both intentional and accidental (Shipley and Keisling 1994). In addition to sewage
systems, the over-application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer around homes and small
businesses is a well-documented problem (Shipley and Keisling 1994). Elevated pollution around
marinas has also been seen, notably in the form of higher fecal coliform levels, higher heavy metal
loads, and lower dissolved oxygen content (Guillen et al. 1993).
Municipal wastewater treatment
The Galveston Bay National Estuary Program identified wastewater treatment issues in the top 17
threats to the biodiversity health of Galveston Bay (Shipley and Keisling 1994). Municipal wastewater
treatment facilities are a necessary component of the urban landscape. Nonetheless, they do contribute
to altered water chemistry within the conservation area. Over the past 30 years, wastewater treatment
has improved significantly around Galveston Bay; however, work remains to be done. Studies indicate
that municipal wastewater may comrpise up to 1/3 of the pollution in Galveston Bay (Newelll et al.
1992). Review of urban sewage treatment systems shows that many systems are aged or overburdened,
and sewage bypasses from these systems introduce treated and untreated effluent into rivers, lakes, and
estuaries (Shipley and Keisling 1994). Houston has undertaken a huge project to improve its
wastewater treatment and drainage systems. However, many small municipalities in the watershed also
contribute to wastewater problems within the conservation area; these entities need to address their
contribution to water quality within Galveston Bay as well.
16
Conversion to agriculture (historical source)
Agricultural conversion of wetlands and prairies has been a significant source of habitat loss within
the conservation area. Rice farms and rangeland are the most widely seen agricultural conversions
here. Both have occurred in areas that once supported native tallgrass prairie or freshwater, saline or
brackish marshes (Appendix A, Maps 3 and 5). Rangeland conversion represented the source of
greatest habitat loss among all emergent wetland types from 1950 to 1989 (Shipley and Keisling
1994). It is interesting to note that rice farming may increase useable habitat for some grassland birds.
Restoration of converted areas is technically possible, but often labor-intensive and costly.
Furthermore, many of these areas are being converted yet again, this time for residential and
commercial uses. Thus, the threat from agricultural conversions may decrease in proportion to the
increase in development over the next 10 years.
Medium Threats
Industrial discharge
The Galveston Bay watershed lies in one of Texas’ most highly industrialized areas. Petroleum
production, manufacturing plants, small industry, and shipping all operate here. Permitted and non-
permitted discharge from these activities enters surface water and groundwater at a multitude of sites
(Appendix A, Map 3) and spreads across the conservation area. Heavy metals, organic compunds, and
other substances enter each natural community within the conservation area (Newell et al. 1992,
Guillen et al. 1994). Discharges can alter oxygen content and affect sediment loads as well. Even
though most businesses operate within legal regulations, the cumulative effects of all this discharge
activity have produced documented changes in ecosystem structure and function, and additional
impacts are suspected (Armstrong and Ward 1994). The largest pollutant loads from permitted
discharges were northeast of the conservation area. Since 1970, changes in industrial discharge
practices have led to significant improvements in water quality within Galveston Bay (Armstrong and
Ward 1994). Industrial discharge is now estimated to contribute less than 7% to the total loading of
any single pollutant in Galveston Bay (Shipley and Kesiling 1994), making it a lesser threat than urban
non-point source pollution and municipal wastewater treatment. Despite improvements, industrial
discharge continues to be a threat to the biodiversity health of West Galveston Bay.
Crop production practices that contribute to water pollution
Incompatible crop production for the conservation area includes heavy application of pesticides,
herbicides and fertilizers, and tillage practices that do not minimize erosion. Chemicals and fertilizers
may run off directly into surface waters or may leach into the ground table and move into wetlands
and estuaries more slowly. While most operators work within legal limits when applying these
substances, evidence increasingly shows that regulation may not provide appropriate guidelines when
it comes to protecting water resources. It is also documented that profitable crop production can occur
with far less chemical application than industry standards promote (Conservation Technology
Information Center 2001). However, agricultural operators work with extremely low profit margins,
making them averse to risking a change in methods. Thus, despite current evidence to the contrary,
some farmers continue to apply large amounts of fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide. Sediment loading
is an oft-cited problem associated with row crop agriculture. Around Galveston Bay low-till and no-till
cropping, along with other erosion control techniques has greatly reduced sediment loading in
estuaries (Ward and Armstrong 1992), helping lower the threat rank for this source to medium.
17
Invasive and alien species
The conservation area harbors many invasive plants and animals; however, non-native Chinese tallow
(Sapium sebiferum) and native baccharis (Baccharis sp.) are of particular concern. Heavy livestock
grazing and fire suppression help these species gain a competitive advantage in wetlands, salty prairies
and coastal tallgrass prairies, altering species composition and structure, and potentially, hydrology.
These changes may make prairie habitat unsuitable for some wildlife (e.g., certain grassland bird
species). Control or elimination of tallow and baccharis is possible but extremely labor-intensive,
especially once stands are established. Tallow in particular leaves a prodigious seed bank and grows
extremely well in coastal areas excluded from frequent fire. The land use and land cover map in
Appendix A shows areas known to be infested with these 2 woody species. Invasive alien species in
wetlands that bear attention are Eurasian milifoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), water hyacinth
(Eichhornia crassipes), and nutria (Myocastor coypus).
Oil or gas drilling
Oil and gas production can contribute directly to estuary pollution when spills occur or brines are
released from pump sites. Indirect effects come from production and transportation equipment (boats,
barges, and the like). Currently, oil and gas exploration is below historic levels, although numerous
active wells remain on land, in the bay, and offshore (Appendix A, Map 3). Petroleum companies are
increasingly committed to being responsible corporate citizens; thus, opportunities for collaborating on
best management practices may exist.
Recreational use
Galveston Bay and Galveston Island are popular vacation and weekend destinations. People come to
relax on the beaches, boat, swim and sail in the bay, and fish in ponds, bayous, bays and the Gulf.
Many Texans have boats docked in the numerous area marinas (Appendix A, Map 4) or own second
homes in the area. Recreation per se is not a problem; however, the sheer number of visitors places
pressure on natural resources. Vehicular traffic on beaches and un-vegetated flats may disturb nesting
and wintering piping plovers and other shorebirds, and boats can do the same around colonial
waterbird rookery islands. Watercraft contribute to increased particulate suspension and light
attenuation in estuaries, affecting aquatic animals and degrading growing conditions for submerged
aquatic vegetation. Regular foot traffic through sensitive habitats may, in some cases, lead to habitat
degradation and fragmentation (The Nature Conservancy of Texas 2001b). Recreational use will only
increase in this area. Effective abatement of this threat requires imparting eco-friendly recreational
practices to tourists and residents.
Excessive groundwater withdrawal (historical source)
Historically, pumping of groundwater led to subsidence on the mainland and altered hydrology of
many systems within the conservation area and beyond (Shipley and Keisling 1994). In some areas,
drowning of marsh vegetation occurred. Freshwater marshes essentially became lakes, and saltwater
and brackish marshes sank into the open water estuary. Such overpumping has since been curtailed;
however, land subsidence continues, albeit at a much slower rate. This and sea level rise continue to
change the extent and distribution of wetlands throughout the area (Shipley and Keisling 1994).
Adequate alternative water sources are limited, meaning the problem may continue. Water
conservation measures may be the most effective way to address this threat.
18
Low Threats
Overfishing
Fisheries in Galveston Bay have been some of the most productive in Texas; however, overfishing has
contributed to serious declines in populations of brown, white and pink shrimp (Penaeus aztecas, P.
setiferus, P. duorarum), blue crab (Callinectes spaidus), diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin
littoralis), and many fish, such as redfish (Scianops cocellantus), black drum (Pogonias cromis),
spotted seatrout (Cynocsion nebulosus), sand seatrout (Cynoscion arenarius), atlantic croaker
(Micropogonias undulatus), and southern flounder (Paraclicthys lethostigma) (Green et al. 1992).
There was not a consensus among planning team members that overfishing has ceased here; therefore,
the team placed this threat in the active category. Some species are recovering fairly well, thanks in
large part to regulation and management of fisheries by Texas Parks and Wildlife. For instance, red
drum, spotted seatrout, and atlantic croaker numbers are on the rise. However, white shrimp and blue
crab numbers appear to be decreasing, and other species populations appear stable (Green et al. 1992).
Shellfish populations may be more seriously impacted by degradation and loss of marshes and
submerged aquatic vegetation than are finfish species; they may also be more sensitive to changes in
water chemistry and water quality.
Overstocking or overgrazing
Herbivory helps maintain the structure and species composition of tallgrass prairie; hwoever, it is
possible to have too much of a good thing. Historic overstocking and overgrazing has changed the
species composition in many parts of the conservation area, decreasing the dominance of tall
bunchgrasses that characterize coastal tallgrass prairie. A concomitant practice of fire suppression has
helped preclude a return to the former vegetation composition and structure in some uplands. Many
highly altered prairies are found on tracts that are desirable for development; thus discussions of
restoration are moot. However, experience indicates that there may be some places where landowners
wish to retain their property and enhance the tallgrass prairies they have.
Fire suppression
Fire is an ecological process that helps maintain the composition and structure of coastal prairies. Fires
were also fairly common in heavily vegetated marshes. Fire supression has been actively pursued in
these areas for about 100 years, as people sought to protect rangelands, croplands, and their own
houses from burning. Lack of fires has contributed to the spread of woody shrubs and trees, both
native and exotic. Returning fire to coastal grasslands and pyrogenic marshes will significantly
improve the condition of these areas.
19
V. Measurements of Success
Project Capacity
Determining the important biological elements at a site and the pressures affecting those elements is a
vital part of organized conservation. However, to successfully address these conservation needs, we
must have the necessary human and fiscal resources. Thus, the next step towards conservation action
is an assessment of available resources, or project capacity (Table 5). This assessment is based on the
Conservancy’s organizational resources. Computer software assists the team in analyzing factors that
have been shown to be important determinants of a project’s success (Success Indicators). These
factors are ranked from low to very high and used to estimate the likelihood of success for the project
from a programmatic standpoint. This process also shows where capacity is lacking and allows the
Conservancy to proactively address deficiencies. Just as we re-evaluate threats and biodiversity health,
we will measure our success also by changes in project capacity.
Under current conditions, the Conservancy’s ability to address all the conservation concerns at this site
is low (Table 5). The following is an itemized explanation of the rankings given to each success
indicator.
Table 5. The Nature Conservancy’s capacity for conservation in West Galveston Bay
Programmatic Category Key Success Indicator Ranking
Project Leadership and Support Focused Staff Responsibility for Project Low
Conservation Manager or Mentor Low
Project Support Team Low
Strategic Approach Understanding/Application of The Conservancy's Five "S's" High
Iterative, Adaptive Approach to Developing Key n/a
Conservation Strategies
Project Funding Start-Up Funding Low
Sustainable Support Low
Overall Project Capacity Low
1. Focused Staff Responsibility for Project: There are no staff available to devote significant time to
this site. While West Galveston Bay was identified as a conservation area by the Gulf Coast
Prairies and Marshes ecoregional planning team, there are higher-priority conservation areas in
East Texas. The East Texas Program’s resources dictate that staff spend the majority of their time
conserving these other areas.
2. Conservation Manager or Mentor: As of the writing of this plan, East Texas has a new program
manager and new stewardship staff in area (less than 12 months on the job). Also, these staff are
focusing most of their attention on other important projects, such as the Texas City Prairie
Preserve, Refugio/Goliad County Attwater's Prairie Chicken Habitat Project, Big Thicket-
Sandylands Conservation Area, and the Longleaf Ridge Conservation Area.
3. Project Support Team: There is no coordinated support team for West Galveston Bay. Given the
current direction from the Conservancy’s Worldwide Office to keep budgets level in the upcoming
fiscal year and the other priorities in East Texas, no expansion of this project is foreseen for at
least 3 years.
20
4. Understanding/Application of TNC's Five S's: Staff have completed a the site planning process
for this area. Also, considerable evaluation of this site was done in 1999/2000. However, the focus
of this work was mostly on the prairies and their possible part in reintroduction of Attwater's
prairie chickens (Tympanuchus cupido attwateri). It has since been determined that other areas
(e.g., Refugio/Goliad Counties) are better sites for prairie chicken recovery efforts (J. Bergan,
personal communication, 2001). Therefore, staff revisited the analysis in 2001/2002, excluding
Attwater’s prairie chickens.
5. Iterative, Adaptive Approach to Developing Key Conservation Strategies: This indicator is not
applicable during the first year of a project (The Nature Conservancy 2000a). However, it should
be noted that the East Texas Program manager and conservation area planner have met with
Chevron/Texaco staff and US Fish and Wildlife Service Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge staff to
discuss biological and programmatic issues. Also, informal strategic planning has occurred
between the East Texas program manager, conservation area planner, science and stewardship
director, and Texas City Prairie Preserve manager, as well as local experts.
6. Start-Up or Short-Term Funding: Funding has not been secured for Conservancy work in the
conservation area.
7. Sustainable Support: The project does not have sustainable support in place at this time.
Summary
The Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregional Plan (terrestrially based) designated West Galveston
Bay as a conservation area, but did not include it within the list of high priority sites for conservation
action (The Nature Conservancy of Texas 2001a). The North Gulf of Mexico Ecoregional Plan
(marine-based) did not recognize Galveston Bay, nor any of its sub-bays, as conservation areas (The
Nature Conservancy 2000c). Both ecoregional plans examined conservation areas at a fairly coarse
scale. When viewed at a finer scale as we have done here, West Galveston Bay does merit protection.
However, both ecoregional plans point the Conservancy first to numerous higher-priority areas.
In light of these factors, the planning team made the difficult decision to devote only limited resources
to West Galveston Bay in the near term. If conditions at the site or within the Conservancy change, we
may be able to step up efforts in this area at a later date. For now, we must carefully select
conservation strategies that will provide the most benefit per unit effort. To increase project capacity,
we will also look for other organizations interested in conservation within West Galveston Bay. For
instance, the Galveston Bay Foundation has taken the lead in restoring saltwater marsh at the Pierce
Marsh Preserve, and Scenic Galveston has acquired 601 ha (1484 ac) on Virginia Point for
conservation. Locally-based citizen groups, special-interest organizations, and land trusts may be
better positioned to focus resources here than is the Conservancy. While the Conservancy may take
limited actions based on the issues identified through this plan, it is our hope that others can use the
analyses herein to inform their conservation efforts.
21
VI. GOALS, STRATEGIES, AND NEXT STEPS
Conservation Goals
The conservation vision1 is the end toward which the Conservancy and its partners will be working,
the desired future state for the site. The vision, along with our assessment of current conditions
(biodiversity health), trends (threats), and our organizational capacity, guide creation of goals, our
benchmarks along the path to conservation success. The planning team developed 3 goals (below) for
the Conservancy’s work in the conservation area and then identified strategies (Table 6) to address
each goal.
1. Identify and protect buffer areas around strategically located and ecologically intact coastal
tallgrass prairie, saltwater and brackish wetlands, freshwater marshes, submerged aquatic beds,
and open water estuaries.
2. Reduce or minimize water pollution within the conservation area.
3. Collaborate with land and wildlife management organizations to maintain or enhance populations
of species identified as nested conservation elements.
Conservation Strategies
Many groups are already working to conserve the special resources of Galveston Bay and its
associated systems (see below). Also, analysis revealed the Conservancy would be able to engage in
limited conservation action here. Therefore, the planning team felt it was important to select
conservation strategies that were 1) needed to abate critical threats, 2) not being conducted at a
meaningful scale presently, and 3) fell within the Conservancy’s available resources and areas of
expertise. To optimize resources used and conservation achieved over the next 3 years, the planning
team selected 6 top priority strategies (Table 6). The 6 top priority strategies 1) have the highest
potential conservation benefit for the effort; 2) address one or more critical threats for 3 or more
conservation elements; and 3) fall within the current project capacity. Top priority strategies will be
the core of our efforts between 2002 and 2005. After that time, the planning team will examine
progress and potential for this project and assign additional goals and strategies as appropriate.
1 See Executive Summary.
22
Table 6. Conservation strategies and affected conservation elements
Goal Strategy Conservation Element Affected
Bay System
Submerged
Freshwater
Vegetation
Wetlands
Saltwater
Wetlands
Tallgrass
Brackish
Aquatic
Coastal
Prairie
and
Identify and protect Identify ecologically intact lands and select ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
buffer areas around 1-3 focus areas based on ecological
strategically located significance
and ecologically intact
lands in all 5 priority
Help US Fish and Wildlife Service protect ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
areas of influence adjacent to Brazoria
habitats.
National Wildlife Refuge
Reduce or minimize Conduct outreach/education about 1) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
water pollution within ecologically compatible recreation around
the conservation area. water bodies and 2) ecologically compatible
practices for homeowners, using Texas City
Prairie Preserve staff and facilities
Advance water quality protection and better ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
pollution control at state policy level
Collaborate with land Establish collaborative invasive species ✔ ✔ ✔
and wildlife management effort with Brazoria National
management Wildlife Refuge: share staff, expertise
organizations to related to native habitat
maintain or enhance maintenance/restoration (e.g., prescribed
populations of species burning, Chinese tallow control)
identified as nested Explore additional efforts with Brazoria ✔ ✔ ✔
conservation National Wildlife Refuge; trade lessons
elements. learned, methods for prairie restoration,
wetland habitat enhancement, etc.
Additional Conservation Needs and Organizations
The planning team also identified a number of conservation needs that the Conservancy was unable to
meet, or that other organizations were better equipped to address. The most salient needs are outlined
below. These issues are already being addressed in some fashion by state or federal regulatory
agencies, land management agencies, municipalities, or other conservation organizations. For instance,
the Galveston Bay National Estuary Program, sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency and
administered by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission and Texas General Land
Office, has a 20-year plan aimed at mitigating or eliminating many of the threats to biodiversity across
the entire Galveston Bay system (Galveston Bay Information Network 2002). This program has made
significant progress on system-wide issues within the bay. Similarly, the US Environmental Protection
Agency is collaborating with numerous partners to address pollution, habitat loss, and species declines
through the Gulf of Mexico Program (US Environmental Protection Agency 2002). Within this
program, Galveston Bay has been selected to receive special assistance. For over ten years, Texas
Cooperative Extension has been teaching area homeowners how to care for their lawns and homes in
ways that minimize nutrient loading and contamination in local waters (Texas Cooperative Extension
1997). The non-profit Galveston Bay Foundation focuses on local conservation issues and has as its
mission to restore 24,000 ac of coastal habitat by 2010. Chevron/Texaco is working to enhance or
restore habitat at some of its production sites such as Hoskins Mound, a salt dome with tallgrass
prairie and wetlands, located within Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge (Tommy Thompson, personal
communication, 2001). Despite the enormous progress already made by these and other groups, the
conservation needs identified below are ones that the planning team felt would ultimately require more
resources than are currently dedicated.
23
1. Habitat fragmentation and loss: Protect and restore large tracts of upland prairie and marsh.
2. Point source pollution: Reduce or minimize point source pollution from industrial discharge,
wastewater and sewage treatment facilities, commercial marinas within the conservation area and
in the Galveston Bay watershed.
3. Non-point source pollution: Reduce amount of nitrogen, phosphorous, pesticide, herbicide,
petroleum products, heavy metals entering area waters from non-agricultural non-point sources.
4. Non-point source pollution: Develop partnerships with agricultural interests to encourage best
management practices to reduce nutrient and chemical loading (The Nature Conservancy 2000c).
5. Wetland hydrology: Maintain or restore water circulation in bays and wetlands.
6. Open bay water quality: Work with fishermen to develop better management of these resources
and give a voice to shellfishermen for their concerns about water quality (The Nature Conservancy
2000c).
7. Submerged aquatic vegetation: Partner with the seafood industry to build support for research to
investigate the role of seagrasses and marshes as nursery grounds for key commercial species and
to monitor target habitats (The Nature Conservancy 2000c).
8. Invasive and alien species: Reduce or control exotic terrestrial and aquatic species. Some high
priority areas/species are Chinese tallow (Sapium sebiferum), baccharis (Baccharis sp.), Eurasian
milifoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), nutria (Myocastor coypus), and water hyacinth (Eichhornia
crassipes).
9. Commercial boat traffic. Minimize habitat destruction and disturbance from commercial boat
traffic and associated activities.
Conclusion and Next Steps
Using this planning process, The Nature Conservancy of Texas and its partners have made great
strides in understanding the systems, situations, and stakeholders at this site. However, this is just the
beginning of our work. To help ensure the completion of the 6 priority strategies, the Conservancy will
outline specific actions required under each strategy and assign a timeframe and lead parties for
completion of each action. These specifics make up the implementation plan that will guide work on
the ground.
The conservation area plan is not a static document. Periodically, the planning team should re-evaluate
the plan and make necessary changes. The planning team will reassess the plan annually and the
conservation vision and overarching goals after 3 to 5 years to ensure they are still appropriate and
feasible (The Nature Conservancy 2000a). When the plan is revised, we will incorporate additional
long-term strategies. Long-term strategies will be based on accomplishments made during the first
phase of the project and upon the changing needs and conditions across the conservation area. These
steps will help ensure that The Nature Conservancy uses its resources at this site most effectively, and
that our actions are in concert with our goals in the ecoregion, the division, and the organization.
Working with partners on multiple fronts, the Conservancy hopes to conserve the ecological,
recreational, and economic values of the West Galveston Bay Conservation Area for generations to
come.
24
References and Literature Cited
Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado birds: a reference to their distribution and habitat.
Denver Museum Natural History.
Bergan, James. 2002. Director of Science and Stewardship, The Nature Conservancy of Texas.
Personal communication.
Carlton, J.T. 1992. Introduced marine and estuarine mollusks of North America: and end-of-the-20th
century perspective. Journal of Shellfish Research 11(2):489-505.
Cuthbert, F. J., and T. Wiens. 1982. Status and breeding biology of the piping plover in Lake of the
Woods County, Minnesota. Report submitted to Non-Game Program, Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources.
Conant, R. and J. T. Collins. 1991. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians: eastern and central North
America. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts.
Conservation Technology Information Center. 2001. Core 4 conservation. Available at:
http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/CTIC/CTIC.html. Web site accessed February 2002.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Sciences, Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S.
Dept. of the Interior, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-79/31.
Dahl, T.E. and C.E. Johnson. 1991. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States,
mid-1970's to mid-1980's. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C.
Dinsmore, J. J. 1981. Piping plovers - a synthesis of the literature and an annotated bibliography.
Unpublished report.
Galveston Bay Information Network. 2002. Galveston Bay information network. Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Service. Available at: http://gbep.tamug.tamu.edu/gbepix.html. Web site
accessed January, 2002.
Godfrey, R. K. and J. Wooten. 1979. Aquatic and wetland plants of the southeastern United States.
University of Georgia Press. Athens.
Green, A., M. Osborn, P . Chai, J. Lin, C. Loeffler, A. Morgan, P. Rubec, S. Spanyers, A. Walton, R.
D. Slack, D. Gawlik, D. Harpole, J. Thomas, E. Buskey, K. Schmidt, R. Zimmerman, D. Harper, D.
Hinkley, T. Sager, and A. Walton. 1992. Status and trends of selected living resources in the
Galveston Bay system. Galveston Bay National Estuary Program Publication GBNEP-19. Webster,
Texas.
Guillen, G., D. Phillips, J. Harper and J. Larson. 1994. Partially treated and untreated effluent loadings
on Galveston Bay. Galveston Bay National Estuary Program Publication GBNEP-41. Webster, Texas.
Guillen, G., S. Smith, L. Broach, and M. Ruckman. 1993. The impacts of marinas on the water quality
of Galveston Bay. Galveston Bay National Estuary Program Publication GBNEP-23. Webster, Texas.
25
Haig, S. 1983. The piping plover. Natural Areas Journal 3(3):35-37.
Haig, S. M. 1992. Distribution and status of piping plovers in winter. Abstract, 6th annual meeting of
the Society for Conservation Biology.
Haig, S. M., and J. H. Plissner. 1993. Distribution and abundance of piping plovers: results and
implications of the 1991 international census. Condor 95:145-156.
Haig, S.M. 1992. Piping plover (Charadrius melodus). In A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, (eds),
The birds of North America, No. 2. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American
Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 18 pp.
Houston-Galveston Area Council 2001. Data Service. Available at:
http://www.hgac.cog.tx.us/intro/introdata.html. Website accessed February 1, 2002
Jones, C., et al. 1997. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1997.
Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University (173):1-19.
Lambert, A., and B. Ratcliff. 1979. A survey of piping plovers in Michigan, 1979. Report submitted to
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Michigan.
Matthews, J. R., and C. J. Moseley (editors). 1990. The official World Wildlife Fund guide to
endangered species of North America. Volume 1. Plants, mammals. Volume 2. Birds, reptiles,
amphibians, fishes, mussels, crustaceans, snails, insects, and arachnids. Beacham Publications, Inc.,
Washington, D.C.
Manzella, S. A. and J. A. Williams. 1992. The distribution of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys
kempi) along the Texas coast: an atlas. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical
Report NMFS 110.
Minello, T. J. 1999. Nekton densities in shallow estuarine habitats of Texas and Louisiana and the
identification of essential fish habitat. American Fisheries Society Symposium 22:43-75.
Morreale, S. J., et al. 1992. Annual occurrence and winter mortality of marine turtles in New York
waters. J. Herpetology 26:301-308.
Nance, J. M. 1996. Biological review of the 1995 Texas closure. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-379.
NatureServe. 2001. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version
1.6 . Arlington, Virginia, USA. Available at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed: January
2002.
Newelll, C. J., H. S. Rifai, P. B. Bedient. 1992. Characterization of nonpoint sources and loadings to
Galveston Bay. Volume 1, Technical Report. Galveston Bay National estuary Program Publication
GBNEP-15. Webster, Texas.
Ogren, L. H. 1992. Atlantic ridley turtle Lepidochelys kempii (Garman). In P. E. Moler (ed). Rare and
endangered biota of Florida. Volume III. Amphibians and reptiles. Univ. Press of Florida.
Poiani, K. A., B. D. Richter, M. G. Anderson, H. E. Richter. 2000. Biodiversity conservation at
multiple scales: functional sites, landscapes, and networks. BioScience 50:133-146.
26
Pulich, W. M. and W. A White. 1991. Decline of submerged vegetation in the Galveston Bay system:
chronology and relationship to physical processes. Journal of Coastal Research 7:1125-1138.
Rozas, L. P. and T. J. Minello. 1998. Nekton use of salt marsh, seagrass, and nonvegetated habitats in
a south Texas (USA) estuary. Bulletin of Marine Science 63(3): 481-501.
Rozas, L. P., T. J. Minello, and C. B. Henry. 2000. An assessment of potential oil spill damage to salt
marsh habitats and fishery resources in Galveston Bay, Texas. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40(12):1148-
1160.
Ryan, M. R., B. G. Root, and P. M. Mayer. 1993. Status of piping plovers in the Great Plains of North
America: a demographic simulation model. Conservation Biology 7(3):781-787.
Schenke, Diane, East Texas Program Manager, The Nature Conservancy of Texas. Personal
communication 2002.
Schmid, J. R., and W. N. Witzell. 1997. Age and growth of wild Kemp's ridley turtles (Lepidochelys
kempi): cumulative results of tagging studies in Florida. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2:532-
537.
Shipley, F. S. and R. W. Keisling. 1994. The state of the bay: a characterization of the Galveston Bay
ecosystem. The Galveston Bay National Estuary Program, publication GBNEP-44.
Texas Cooperative Extension. 1997. Extension helping combat Galveston Bay pollution. Available at:
http://agnews.tamu.edu/stories/WFSC/Feb1297a.htm. Web site accessed January 30, 2002.
Texas Conservation Data Center. 2002. Biological conservation database. Accessed February 1, 2002.
Texas Department of Health. 2000. The health of Galveston Bay seafood. Available at:
http://gbep.tamug.tamu.edu/ss/seafood_home.html. Web site accessed February 5, 2002.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2000. Texas Gulf ecological management sites. Available at:
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/texaswater/txgems/christma/christma.htm. Web site accessed February 5,
2002.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2001. Texas state parks-Gulf Coastal region. Available at:
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/park/clicpark/gulf.htm. Web site accessed February 12, 2002.
The Nature Conservancy. 2000a. The five-s framework for site conservation: a practitioner’s
handbook for site conservation planning and measuring conservation success. Volume I. The Nature
Conservancy, Arlington Virginia.
The Nature Conservancy. 2000b. Designing a geography of hope: a practitioner’s handbook for
ecoregional conservation planning. Volume I. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington Virginia.
The Nature Conservancy. 2000c. Identification of Priority Sites for Conservation in the Northern Gulf
of Mexico An Ecoregional Plan. Draft. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington Virginia.
The Nature Conservancy of Texas. 2001a. Draft Gulf Coast prairies and marshes ecoregional plan.
Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregional Planning Team, The Nature Conservancy, San Antonio,
Texas.
27
The Nature Conservancy of Texas. 2001b. Site Conservation Plan for Mustang Island. Site
Conservation Planning Team, The Nature Conservancy, San Antonio, Texas.
Thompson, Tommy. 2001. Technologist, Chevron/Texaco.
United States Census Bureau. 1990. State and county quickfacts. Available at:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html. Accessed January 7, 2002.
United States Census Bureau. 2000. State and county quickfacts. Available at:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html. Accessed January 7, 2002.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Gulf of Mexico Program.
http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/ Web site accessed January 30, 2002.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1992. Recovery plan
for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii. Nationals Marine Fisheries Service, St.
Petersburg, Florida.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. 1991 status update, United States Atlantic coast piping
plover. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region, Newton Corner, Massachusetts.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Draft revised recovery plan for piping plovers,
Charadrius melodus, breeding on the Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains of the United States.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, Minnesota.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Multi-species recovery plan for the threatened and
endangered species of south Florida. Technical/Agency draft, United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
Atlanta, Georgia.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Final determinations of critical habitat for wintering
piping plovers; final rule. Federal Register 66:36037-36143.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Endangered and threatened species recovery program:
report to Congress.
United States Geological Survey. 2000. Review draft: North American colonial waterbird
conservation plan. Available at: http://www.pwrc.nbs.gov/nacwcp/plan/. Web site accessed January
24, 2002.
White, W. A., T. R. Calnan, R. A. Morton. R. S. Kumble, T. G. Littleton, J. H. McGowen, H. S.
Nance, and K. E. Schmede. 1985. Submerged lands of Texas, Galveston-Houston area: sediments,
geochemistry, benthic macroinvertebrates, and associated wetlands. Bureau of Economic Geology.
The University of Texas at Austin. Austin, Texas.
White, W. A. and J. G. Paine. 1992. Wetland plant communities, Galveston Bay system. Galveston
Bay National Estuary Program Publication GBNEP-16. Webster, Texas.
White, W. A., T. A. Tremblay, E. G. Wermund, Jr., and L. R. Handley 1993. Trends and status of
wetland and aquatic habitats in the Galveston Bay system, Texas. Galveston Bay National Estuary
Program Publication GBNEP-31. Webster, Texas.
28
Wilcox, L. 1939. Notes on the life history of the piping plover. In The birds of Long Island. Bird Club
of Long Island, New York, New York.
Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (eds). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and
geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
29
Glossary
biodiversity: the variety of life forms and ecological systems, the genetic variability they contain and
the ecological processes that maintain them.
compatible (as in wildlife compatible, habitat compatible, ecologically compatible): having a benign
influence on wildlife or habitat, or on conservation efforts.
community, ecological community, ecological system: an interdependent assemblage of plant and
animal species.
conservation element: A species, guild, community or assemblage of communities that has been
selected by The Nature Conservancy as a priority for conservation planning or action.
conservation area: specific area that the Conservancy is interested in maintaining. Conservation areas
may be a few acres large, up to thousands of acres. Conservation areas should support or have the
potential to support species or communities of conservation interest (alternative term: project area).
conservation status: a federal or state legal designation usually indicating some degree of threat or
imperilment (see Appendix B).
ecoregion: a relatively large area of land and water characterized by similar climate, vegetation and
geology, and other ecological and environmental patterns.
ecoregional planning: planning for long-term conservation goals within ecoregions.
element: plant or animal species, community or other entity of biodiversity; may serve as a focus for
conservation efforts (see conservation element).
element occurrence: a detailed description of the location and conditions in which a species population
or ecological community occurs.
endangered: legal term, meaning at immediate risk of extinction, and probably unable to survive
without direct human intervention. Indicates the species has been listed on federal or state endangered
species list.
endemic: found nowhere else, unique to a place.
functional conservation area/functional area: a conservation area that maintains species and their
supporting ecological processes. A functional conservation area typically supports a small number of
species.
functional conservation landscape/functional landscape: similar to a functional conservation area, but
supports a large number of species over a large area.
functional conservation network/functional network: a set of functional conservation areas and
landscapes that allow species survival and reproduction on a regional scale (e.g., golden-cheeked
warbler habitat in the Texas Hill Country spans hundreds of thousands of acres and includes many
separate conservation areas among which birds can travel).
global ranks, G-ranks: The conservation rank of an element within a given area is designated by a G
(Global) or S (Subnational) as appropriate and followed by a rank number, 1 to 5. Species of
30
conservation concern usually are those with global (G-ranks) ranks of 1-3; however, some species
with lower global ranks may be of conservation concern in a particular area due to national, state, or
local conditions. See Appendix B.
guild: a group of organisms that exhibit similar habitat requirements and that respond in a similar way
to changes in their environment.
Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregion: ecoregion historically dominated by tallgrass coastal
prairie and marshes. Today, much of the prairie is farmed or developed. Extends along the coast of the
Gulf of Mexico from northern Mexico over to the Mississippi Delta. Includes Laguna Madre region of
South Texas and northern Mexico.
landscape: a heterogeneous land area of interacting ecosystems that are repeated in similar form
throughout.
prescribed burn: the skilled application of fire to forest or grassland fuels under predetermined
conditions, used to reach specific conservation objectives.
riparian: forested or wooded streamside or riverside.
savanna: ecosystem with a continuous grass layer and scattered trees or shrubs.
sustainable: allowing the continued use and viability of natural resources.
system: a collection of interdependent living and non-living elements and the natural processes that
maintain them.
threatened: legal term, meaning species is 1) abundant in parts of its range but declining in overall
numbers and at risk of extinction, or 2) present in low numbers across its range and at risk of
extinction. Indicates the species has been listed on federal or state threatened species list.
31
Appendices
32
Appendix A: Maps
1. West Galveston Bay Conservation Area Locale
2. Detail of West Galveston Bay Conservation Area
3. Commercial and Industrial Activity
4. Recreation and Urban Development
5. Land Use and Land Cover
6. General Land Office Designation of Sensitive Coastal Habitats
7. Known Occurrences of Conservation Elements
33
Appendix B: Heritage Ranking System and Federal/State Status Symbols
Deciphering Heritage Ranks
The conservation rank of an element within a given area is designated by a G (Global), N (National) or
S (State) as appropriate and followed by a rank number, 1 to 5. Species of conservation concern
usually are those with global (G-ranks) ranks of 1-3; however, some species with higher global ranks
may be of conservation concern in a particular area due to national, state, or local conditions. The
heritage rank numbers have the following meaning:
1 = critically imperiled, less than 6 known occurrences of the species
2 = imperiled, 6-20 known occurrences
3 = vulnerable to extirpation or extinction, 21-100 known occurrences; species very rare and local
throughout its range or found locally (even abundantly) in a restricted range
4 = apparently secure, though may be quite rare in parts of its range; over 100 known occurrences
5 = demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure, though may be quite rare in parts of its range
Rank numbers may be combined when there is uncertainty over the status (e.g., an element may be
given an G-rank of G2G3, indicating global status is somewhere between imperiled and vulnerable).
Other Rank Symbols
Q = Questionable taxonomy that may reduce conservation priority
? = Inexact numeric rank. May also be seen as a combination of numbers (S2S3).
G? = unasssessed global rank
R = reported, not yet ranked
X = presumed extirpated
Rank Criteria, Relationship to Other Status Designations
Ranking is a qualitative process, with multiple factors going into rank decisions. For species elements,
the following factors are applied: 1) total number and condition of occurrences (sighting/records) of
that species, 2) population size, 3) range extent and area of occupancy, 4) short and long-term trends in
the first three factors, 5) threats to the element, and 6) fragility of the element.
Heritage Ranks are often, but not always, comparable to statuses assigned by government agencies.
For instance, the Heritage subnational ranking for an endangered species may not be S1. For this
reason, Federal and State statuses are also given for species of conservation concern when possible.
Federal and State Listing
The system used to indicate the status of a species is as follows:
PT = proposed for listing as federally threatened
PE = proposed for listing as federally endangered
LT = federally threatened
LE = federally endangered
ST = state threatened
SE = state endangered
For more information or to find heritage ranks for species and ecological communities, visit the
NatureServe website: http://www.natureserve.org/
34
Appendix C: Biodiversity Health and Viability Ranking System
1. Specify the conservation elements to be measured at the conservation area. Each conservation area
has one or more prima facie reason it has been selected for conservation – i.e., occurrences of
important species, communities, assemblages of communities. Conservation elements at a
conservation area may include the following:
Ecological communities.
Spatial assemblages of ecological communities, or ―ecological systems.‖
Imperiled and endangered native species of animals or plants (most species ranked G1-G3).
Species of special concern due to vulnerability, declining trends, disjunct distributions, or endemic
status within the ecoregion.
Groupings of species that have common natural processes or similar conservation requirements.
Globally significant examples of species aggregations.
Selecting conservation elements as the basis for measuring biodiversity health is based on 4 criteria:
1) Reflective of ecoregion conservation goals.
2) Representative of the conservation area.
3) Importance for biodiversity conservation.
4) Reflective of conservation goals.
2. The viability of the selected conservation elements should be assigned a rank using a four-level
scale. The viability ranking system uses simple categorical ranks, as follows:
Very Good = viability criteria at or above desired future status
Good = viability criteria at or above minimum threshold for biological integrity
Fair = viability criteria at or above minimum restorable level
Poor = viability criteria below minimun restorable status (probably unrecoverable)
The assessment of viability is based on 3 viability criteria:
Size is a measure of the area or abundance of the conservation element’s occurrence. For ecological
systems and communities, size is simply a measure of the occurrence’s geographic coverage. For
species, size takes into account the area of occupancy and number of individuals. Minimum area
needed to ensure survival or re-establishment of an element after natural disturbance is another aspect
of size.
Condition is an integrated measure of the composition, structure, and biotic interactions that
characterize the occurrence. This includes factors such as reproduction, age structure, biological
composition (e.g., presence of native versus exotic species; presence of characteristic patch types for
ecological systems), structure (e.g., canopy, understory, and groundcover in a forested community),
and biotic interactions (e.g., levels of competition, predation, and disease).
Landscape context is an integrated measure of two factors: the dominant environmental regimes and
processes that establish and maintain the element occurrence, and connectivity. Dominant
environmental regimes and processes include herbivory, hydrologic and water chemistry regimes
(surface and groundwater), geomorphic processes, climatic regimes (temperature and precipitation),
fire regimes, and many kinds of natural disturbance. Connectivity includes such factors as species
elements having access to habitats and resources needed for life cycle completion, fragmentation of
ecological communities and system, and the ability of any element to respond to environmental
change through dispersal, migration, or re-colonization.
35
Appendix D: Threat Ranking Guidelines
Threats are composed of stresses and sources of stress (or sources). A stress is defined as a process or
event with direct negative consequences on the conservation element (e.g., alteration of water flow
into a marsh). The source of stress is the action or entity that produces a stress (e.g., channel building).
The planning team must identify and rank the stresses and sources for each of the conservation
elements (Appendix C, Tables 1a through 7b). Guidelines for selection and ranking of stresses and
sources are below.
The stress ranks and source ranks for individual elements 1) help elucidate the factors influencing that
element and subsequently, the necessary conservation strategies, and 2) contribute to the analysis of
threats for the conservation area. A conservation element’s stress and source rankings are analyzed
together via computer to provide threat ranks for the element (Appendix C, Tables 1b through 7b).
Once element threat ranks have been generated, the threat ranks are further examined via computer to
assess threat ranks across elements and for the conservation area as a whole (Table 4, main document).
Stress Ranking
Severity of Damage -- what level of damage can reasonably be expected within 10 years
under current circumstances (given the continuation of the existing
management/conservation situation)
Very The stress is likely to destroy or eliminate the conservation element over some
High portion of the element’s occurrence at the conservation area
High The stress is likely to seriously degrade the conservation element over some portion
of the element’s occurrence at the conservation area
Medium The stress is likely to moderately degrade the conservation element over some
portion of the element’s occurrence at the conservation area
Low The stress is likely to only slightly impair the conservation element over some portion
of the element’s occurrence at the conservation area
Scope of Damage – what is the geographic scope of impact on the conservation element
at the conservation area that can reasonably be expected within 10 years under current
circumstances (given the continuation of the existing situation)
Very The stress is likely to be very widespread or pervasive in its scope, and affect the
High conservation element throughout the element’s occurrences at the conservation area
High The stress is likely to be widespread in its scope, and affect the conservation element
at many of its locations at the conservation area
Medium The stress is likely to be localized in its scope, and affect the conservation element at
some of the element’s locations at the conservation area
Low The stress is likely to be very localized in its scope, and affect the conservation
element at a limited portion of the element’s location at the conservation area
36
Stress Ranking Chart
Severity Scope
Very High High Medium Low
Very High Very High High Medium Low
High High High Medium Low
Medium Medium Medium Medium Low
Low Low Low Low -
Source Ranking
Contribution -- Expected contribution of the source, acting alone, to the full expression of a
stress (as determined in the stress assessment) under current circumstances (i.e., given the
continuation of the existing management/conservation situation)
Very High The source is a very large contributor of the particular stress
High The source is a large contributor of the particular stress
Medium The source is a moderate contributor of the particular stress
Low The source is a low contributor of the particular stress
Irreversibility – Reversibility of the impact from the projected Source of Stress;
responsiveness to corrective action
Very High Impact of the projected stress from the source, for all intents and purposes, is not
reversible (e.g. wetland converted to shopping center)
High Impact of the projected stress from the source is reversible, but not practically
affordable (e.g. wetland converted to agriculture)
Medium Impact of the projected stress from the source is reversible with a reasonable
commitment of additional resources (e.g. ditching and draining of wetland)
Low Impact of the projected stress from the source is easily reversible at relatively low
cost (e.g. ORVs trespassing in wetland)
Source Ranking Chart
Irreversibility Contribution
Very High High Medium Low
Very High Very High High High Medium
High Very High High Medium Medium
Medium High Medium Medium Low
Low Medium Medium Low Low
37
Combined Threat Ranking
The Combined Threat Rank for a source of stress is determined in two steps:
1) Determine the Threat Rank for each Stress-Source combination, based on the following table:
STRESS
Very High High Medium Low
Very High Very High Very High High Medium
SOURCE
High High High Low Low
Medium Medium Medium Low Low
Low Low Low Low --
2) Determine the Combined Threat rank for a source by combining the individual Threat ranks for
each stress-source combination. For sources that cause only one stress, the Combined Threat rank
equals the individual threat rank. For sources that cause multiple stresses, the initial Combined Threat
rank takes on the rank of the highest-ranked threat; this initial rank may then be adjusted upward by
applying the rule of 3,4,5.
Rule of 3,4,5 – Three High threats are equivalent to one Very High threat; four Medium threats are
equivalent to one High threat; and five Low threats are equivalent to one Medium threat.
For example, the Combined Threat rank of a source of stress that contributes to three High-ranked
threats would be Very High, because the three High threats are equivalent to a Very High threat.
Likewise, a source of stress that contributes to two High threats and four Medium threats would have a
Combined Threat rank of Very High because the four Medium threats are equivalent to a third High
threat, which in turn are equivalent to one Very High threat.
38
Appendix E: Descriptions of Conservation Elements and Nested Elements*
*Source: Nature Serve 2001.
Vegetation Communities
1. Sarcocornia perennis - Batis maritima - Distichlis spicata Dwarf-shrubland. Translated Scientific
Name Woody-glasswort - Saltwort - Saltgrass Dwarf-shrubland
This association occurs in hypersaline flats of lower tidal flats and shallow depressions of upper tidal
flats, and is dominated by the halophytic, succulent dwarf-shrub Sarcocornia perennis and other
halophytes, including Salicornia bigelovii, Distichlis spicata, and sometimes stunted Spartina
alterniflora. Other typical species can include Suaeda spp., Sporobolus virginicus, Sesuvium
portulacastrum, and Limonium carolinianum. Batis maritima, while generally always present, will not
dominate this community [see Batis maritima - Sarcocornia perennis Dwarf-shrubland (CEGL003956)].
Total vegetative cover is quite variable, from near total absence of vascular plants to a dense cover of the
nominal species. Algal mats are characteristically present, visible even in densely vegetated pannes. Blue-
green algae may contribute significantly more biomass than vascular species. Texas examples, of
alternately wet and dry saline soils along the Gulf Coast, may contain Monanthochloe littoralis,
Rayjacksonia phyllocephala (= Machaeranthera phyllocephala), Borrichia frutescens, Maytenus
phyllanthoides, Suaeda spp., Sesuvium portulacastrum, and Sporobolus virginicus.
2. Schizachyrium scoparium ssp. littorale - Paspalum monostachyum Herbaceous Vegetation.
Translated Scientific Name: Seaside Bluestem - Gulfdune Crowngrass Herbaceous Vegetation
This association is the predominant grassland on the Ingleside barrier-strandplain and barrier islands of
the Texas Coastal Bend. It also occurs on the upper Texas coast (Follets Island). In addition to
Schizachyrium littorale and Paspalum monostachyum, common components include Heteropogon
contortus, Paspalum plicatulum, Trichoneura elegans, Andropogon gerardii, Sorghastrum nutans,
Bothriochloa saccharoides, Muhlenbergia capillaris, Dichanthelium spp., and Elionurus tripsacoides.
Minor changes in drainage can cause differences in species composition. On the Ingleside barrier-
strandplain, while Paspalum monostachyum may dominate slightly lower areas, deeper swales are
typically dominated by Panicum virgatum and Spartina patens and are classified as Spartina patens -
Fimbristylis (caroliniana, castanea) - (Panicum virgatum) Herbaceous Vegetation (CEGL007836). In this
area, these grasslands occur intermixed with Quercus fusiformis - Persea borbonia Forest
(CEGL002117). Other components on the barrier-strandplain include Baptisia bracteata var. leucophaea,
Dichanthelium acuminatum var. fasciculatum (= Dichanthelium lanuginosum), Phlox drummondii,
Rhynchosia americana, Sida lindheimeri, Stemodia lanata, and Stylisma villosa. In addition to the
nominals, barrier flat communities include Spartina patens, Trachypogon spicatus (= Trachypogon
secundus), Muhlenbergia capillaris, Rhynchosia americana, Galactia canescens, Helianthus argophyllus,
and Physalis viscosa. Here, poorly drained areas may support inclusions of Spartina spartinae.
3. Spartina alterniflora - Distichlis spicata - Spartina patens Mesohaline Tidal Herbaceous Vegetation.
Translated Scientific Name: Saltmarsh Cordgrass - Saltgrass - Saltmeadow Cordgrass Mesohaline
Tidal Herbaceous Vegetation
This community is a common marsh type of coastal Louisiana and Texas, occurring just inland of salt
marsh. It appears to be a transitional type between salt marsh and brackish marsh or high salt marsh. It is
found in both the Deltaic and Chenier plains in Louisiana and along the central and upper coast of Texas.
Species richness is characteristically quite low. This marsh is characterized by a more-or-less equal
codominance of Spartina alterniflora, Distichlis spicata and Spartina patens. Distichlis spicata often
forms pure stands. Juncus roemerianus is often quite abundant as well. Other common species include
Schoenoplectus robustus (= Scirpus robustus), Schoenoplectus americanus (= Scirpus americanus),
Suaeda linearis, Batis maritima, Baccharis halimifolia, Borrichia frutescens, Iva frutescens, Spartina
39
cynosuroides (within its range), Spartina spartinae, Paspalum spp., Eragrostis spp., and others.
4. Spartina alterniflora - Juncus roemerianus - Distichlis spicata Louisianian Zone Salt Tidal Herbaceous
Vegetation. Translated Scientific Name: Saltmarsh Cordgrass - Black Needlerush - Saltgrass
Louisianian Zone Salt Tidal Herbaceous Vegetation
This salt marsh community occurs along the Gulf Coast from Florida to Texas. It is the major salt marsh
type of coastal Louisiana, occurring in Gulf-fringing areas, mostly flanking large bays. It is mainly found
in the Deltaic Plain but is also present in the Chenier Plain, principally as a narrow band of marsh behind
coastal dunes. Species richness is characteristically quite low. This marsh is usually strongly dominated
by Spartina alterniflora. In the Deltaic Plain of Louisiana, Juncus roemerianus may be present as a
component or in localized monospecific patches of a marsh otherwise dominated by Spartina alterniflora.
In the Chenier Plain of Louisiana, the type is codominated by Distichlis spicata and Spartina alterniflora.
In the central and upper coast of Texas, this marsh is usually limited in extent to the bay side of barrier
islands and narrow bands along mainland shores and tidal guts. Other common species include Spartina
patens, Vigna luteola, Schoenoplectus americanus (= Scirpus americanus), Phragmites australis,
Sagittaria platyphylla, Polygonum spp., Batis maritima, Baccharis halimifolia, and Cyperus spp.
Schoenoplectus robustus (= Scirpus robustus) sometimes occurs as a local, patchy or zonal dominant and
codominant.
5. Spartina spartinae Herbaceous Vegetation. Translated Scientific Name: Gulf Cordgrass Herbaceous
Vegetation
This community occurs on upland flats just above normal tidal reach. Spartina spartinae is typically
monodominant, but Setaria parviflora is common and typical and Spartina patens may be locally
codominant. Other species include Andropogon glomeratus var. pumilus, Paspalum vaginatum, Spartina
patens, Cyperus spp., Lythrum alatum var. lanceolatum, Solidago sempervirens, and Palafoxia texana
var. ambigua. Scattered shrubs, such as Iva frutescens, Prosopis glandulosa var. glandulosa, and
Baccharis halimifolia, can occur, especially as invaders as the result of grazing and/or fire suppression.
This association is maintained as a grassland by periodic fires. In the absence of fire, woody
encroachment can convert these grasslands into a Baccharis halimifolia-dominated shrubland. In parts of
its range, this community covers large expanses, but it also can form a linear fringe above tidal flats and
marshes.
6. Schizachyrium scoparium - Paspalum plicatulum - Sorghastrum nutans - Dichanthelium oligosanthes -
Paspalum setaceum - Symphyotrichum pratense Alfisol Herbaceous Vegetation. Translated
Scientific Name: Little Bluestem - Brownseed Crowngrass - Yellow Indiangrass - Few-flower
Witchgrass - Slender Crowngrass - Western Silvery Aster Alfisol Herbaceous Vegetation
This community occurs on Alfisols of the Lissie (Montgomery and Bentley) and Beaumont formations of
the Upper and Lower Coastal Prairie and the Oakville Sandstone and Cook Mountain formations of the
Fayette Prairie of southeastern Texas. The dominant species include Schizachyrium scoparium var.
scoparium, Paspalum plicatulum, Dichanthelium oligosanthes, Sorghastrum nutans, Aristida
purpurascens, and Fimbristylis puberula.
7. Panicum virgatum - Tripsacum dactyloides - (Panicum hemitomon) Herbaceous Vegetation
Translated Scientific Name: Switchgrass - Eastern Gammagrass - (Maidencane) Herbaceous
Vegetation
This association describes wet coastal prairie, now virtually extirpated, that historically was found in a
natural mosaic with upland, mesic (non-wetland) coastal prairie to form the once extensive coastal
prairies of the Pleistocene Prairie Terraces of southwestern Louisiana and southeastern Texas. This type
occupied the broad low flats, drainage swales, and small shallow seasonally flooded that interdigitated
40
with the slightly higher broad, convex flats of upland coastal prairie. It also occupied low, wet areas
between pimple mounds, the mounds supporting upland coastal prairie. This landscape was bisected by
'gallery forests' along small permanent streams that divided the prairie into 'coves.' The prairies
unquestionably sustained a rich variety of wetland grasses, sedges, rushes and forbs. Extremely few
examples of wet coastal prairie remain, and practically no historical literature records of the vegetation
were made. Further estimations of the characteristic vegetation of this type, primarily in relation to
Louisiana examples, have been developed from a review of heliophytic herbaceous wetland vegetation
thought to be native to the region, combined with the few floristic studies made of remnant native 'prairie'
patches in the area (e.g., Allen 1988, LNHP on-going surveys, Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge).
Grasses and grass-like plants (graminoids) most likely dominated. Some characteristic graminoids
probably included (and these are present today in wet areas in the coastal prairie zone) Alopecurus
carolinianus, Axonopus fissifolius (= Axonopus affinis), Axonopus furcatus, Bothriochloa laguroides ssp.
torreyana, Bothriochloa longipaniculata, Carex cherokeensis, Carex frankii, Carex intumescens, Carex
meadii, Carex reniformis, Carex vulpinoidea, Cladium mariscus ssp. jamaicense, Coelorachis rugosa,
Cyperus articulatus, Kyllinga brevifolia (= Cyperus brevifolius), Cyperus erythrorhizos, Cyperus haspan,
Cyperus oxylepis, Cyperus strigosus, Cyperus virens, Dichanthelium scoparium, Echinochloa walteri,
Eleocharis macrostachya, Eleocharis microcarpa, Eleocharis montana, Eleocharis obtusa, Eleocharis
quadrangulata, Eragrostis elliottii, Fimbristylis autumnalis, Fimbristylis caroliniana, Fimbristylis
dichotoma, Fimbristylis littoralis (= Fimbristylis miliacea), Fimbristylis puberula, Fimbristylis
tomentosa, Juncus brachycarpus, Juncus effusus, Juncus marginatus, Juncus nodatus, Juncus
polycephalus, Juncus validus, Leersia hexandra, Muhlenbergia capillaris, Panicum dichotomiflorum,
Panicum hemitomon, Panicum rigidulum, Panicum virgatum, Paspalum dissectum, Paspalum
floridanum, Paspalum lividum, Paspalum plicatulum, Rhynchospora caduca, Rhynchospora colorata (=
Dichromena colorata), Rhynchospora corniculata, Rhynchospora globularis, Rhynchospora glomerata,
Rhynchospora macrostachya, Rhynchospora nitens (= Psilocarya nitens), Saccharum giganteum (=
Erianthus giganteus), Scleria ciliata, Sorghastrum nutans, Tridens strictus, Tripsacum dactyloides, and
Zizaniopsis miliacea. Characteristic herbs other than graminoids probably included (and still present
today in wet areas in the coastal prairie zone) Arnoglossum ovatum (= Cacalia ovata), Boltonia
asteroides, Bacopa rotundifolia, Callitriche heterophylla, Centella erecta (= formerly considered
Centella asiatica), Eryngium yuccifolium, Euthamia leptocephala, Gratiola virginiana, Hibiscus
moscheutos ssp. lasiocarpos, Hydrolea ovata, Hygrophila lacustris, Hymenocallis liriosme, Hypericum
crux-andreae, Hypericum nudiflorum, Hyptis alata, Justicia ovata, Ludwigia linearis, Pluchea rosea,
Polygonum hydropiperoides, Pontederia cordata, Proserpinaca palustris, Ptilimnium capillaceum,
Rudbeckia texana (= Rudbeckia nitida var. texana), Solidago sempervirens, Acmella oppositifolia var.
repens (= Spilanthes americana), Typha latifolia, and Xyris laxifolia var. iridifolia. This type occurs on
Alfisols and Vertisols in the coastal prairie region of Texas. Here, Panicum hemitomon is much less
common or absent; in addition to the nominals, other characteristic species may include Sorghastrum
nutans, Rhynchospora colorata, Rhynchospora sp., Pluchea odorata (= Pluchea purpurascens), Spartina
patens, Scleria triglomerata, and Helenium flexuosum. In near coast areas of Texas, Spartina patens is
also present in this community. Historically, upland coastal prairie was maintained by frequent burning
and soil conditions generally inhospitable to the growth of trees and shrubs.
Species, Animal
1. Charadrius melodus. Common Name: Piping Plover
A small plover; wings approx. 117 mm; tail 51 mm; weight 46-64 g (average 55 g); length averages about
17-18 cm (NGS 1983). NON-BREEDING habitat: Usually on ocean beaches or on sand or algal flats in
protected bays (Haig 1992). Most abundant on expansive sandflats, sandy mudflats, and sandy beach in
close proximity; usually in areas with high habitat heterogeneity. Forages along ocean beaches, on
41
intertidal flats, tidal pool edges, etc. Obtains food from surface of substrate, or occasionally probes into
sand or mud.
Widespread but local breeder in North America; major rangewide declines followed by some recovery;
some regional declines still occurring. Current favorable population trends depend on intensive
management. BREEDING: Locally in the northern Great Plains region from southern Alberta, northern
Saskatchewan, southern Manitoba, northwestern and (formerly) southwestern Ontario, south to eastern
Montana, the Dakotas, southeastern Colorado (Andrews and Righter 1992), Iowa, Minnesota, and
Nebraska; sporadic nesting occurs in Oklahoma (Haig 1992, Haig and Plissner 1993). On the Atlantic
coast from Newfoundland, southeastern Quebec, and New Brunswick to North Carolina (Haig 1992,
USFWS 1992). NON-BREEDING: Complete winter distribution is not known. Birds have been reported
wintering from North Carolina south to Florida, the Gulf coast states, Mexico, and the Caribbean.
Approximately 35 percent of the total breeding population winters along the gulf coast from Florida to
Texas and represents 56 percent of the Great Lakes/Great Plains population. Also in small numbers in the
Bahamas and Greater Antilles, and probably eastern Mexico.
On 10 July 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated 137 areas as Critical Habitat under the US
Endangered Species Act for the wintering population (approximately 2,892 kilometers of mapped
shoreline, 66,881 ha) along the coasts of Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas (USFWS 2001).
Human presence may inhibit courtship, incubation, and brooding (Haig 1983). Nests may also be
trampled and destroyed (Lambert and Ratcliff 1979, Haig 1983, Cuthbert and Wiens 1982). Compression
of beaches by vehicular traffic may also reduce invertebrate prey populations (Ryan 1996). Habitat
alteration and destruction is an additional concern. Plans for dredging and recreational development along
the Gulf of Mexico coast, particularly on Laguna Madre in Texas, pose a serious threat (USFWS 1994).
Wilcox (1959) observed adult mortality following oiling from highway tars. Dinsmore (1981) speculates
that pesticides may be a major concern. Wintering populations along the Gulf Coast are potentially
threatened by major oil spills (USFWS 1994).
2. Crassostrea virginica. Common Name: Eastern oyster
One of the most important commercial species on the eastern seaboard. Native range is from the Gulf of
St. Lawrence to the Gulf of Mexico and the West Indies. Was introduced to the Pacific in the late 1800's
(Carlton 1992).
3. Herpailurus yaguarondi. Common Name: Jaguarundi
Formerly included in the genus FELIS. Placed in the genus HERPAILURUS by Wozencraft (in Wilson
and Reeder 1993) and Jones et al. (1997). Global Range: widespread (greater than 1,000,000 sq. miles):
Southern Arizona and Texas south through Mexico to Belize, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,
Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, French Guiana, Guyana, Surinam, Peru, Bolivia,
Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina (Wozencraft, in Wilson and Reeder 1993). Hoffmeister (1986) regarded
the inclusion of this species in the fauna of Arizona as "most questionable." Texas population probably
consists of only a few individuals; recent sightings in Brazoria County south of Houston, Texas, may have
been of released animals (Matthews and Moseley 1990). Has declined in the northern part of the range.
Very threatened range-wide. Human persecution and loss of habitat (e.g., through clearing for agriculture
or livestock pasture) probably have been the major factors in the decline (Matthews and Moseley 1990).
Probably tolerant of light nondestructive intrusion
42
4. Lepidochelys kempii. Common Name: Kemp's ridley sea turtle
A sea turtle with an almost circular carapace, olive green (adults) or gray (young) above, yellow below; 5
costals on each side of carapace, the first one touching the nuchal; usually 4 enlarged scutes on bridge,
with a single pore at the posterior edge of each scute; usually there is an interanal scute at the posterior tip
of the plastron; beak is somewhat parrotlike; young have 3 tuberculate dorsal ridges, four plastral ridges;
limbs are flattened flippers; adult carapace length usually 58-70 cm (to 75 cm), mass 36-45 kg (to 50 kg);
3.8-4.4 cm at hatching (Conant and Collins 1991).
Most critically endangered of all sea turtles; there is only one major nesting area, along the Gulf Coast of
Tamaulipas, Mexico; "arribada" strategy (mass nesting concurrently) is failing due to population decline.
Little recovery in spite of protective measures for past 15 years. Shrimping trawls drown all life stages,
especially immature individuals. Adults essentially are restricted to the Gulf of Mexico. Immatures
inhabit the Gulf and also the U.S. Atlantic coast north to Long Island Sound (Morreale et al. 1992), New
England, and Nova Scotia. Occasional individuals reach Bermuda, the Azores, and European waters (see
USFWS 1992, 1998). Important foraging areas include Campeche Bay, Mexico, and Louisiana coastal
waters (Ogren 1992).
Uses shallow coastal and estuarine waters, usually over sand or mud bottoms where crabs are numerous;
also uses tidal flats. Apparently largely benthic. Primary summer range of juveniles seems to be northern
estuaries (such as Chesapeake Bay and Long Island Sound). Adults and subadults occur mainly in coastal
waters or shallow banks offshore. Nests on well-defined elevated dune areas, especially on beaches
backed up by large swamps or bodies of open water having seasonal, narrow ocean connections. Females
begin nesting at an estimated age of 8-13 years (Schmid and Witzell 1997).Individual adult females lay 1-
4 clutches averaging about 100 eggs at intervals of 10-28 days, during daylight from April to July.
Individuals often nest in successive years.
5. Malaclemys terrapin (subspp.littoralis). Common Name: Diamondback terrapin
The diamondback terrapin is found in coastal salt marshes, estuaries and tidal creeks (Ernst et al. 1994). It
is a highly aquatic species seen out of water for an extended period of time only when nesting. They are
active during the day and feed on small marine invertebrates, particularly mollusks. It appears that they
spend the night buried in muds. Terrapins form large breeding aggregations of as many as 75-250
individuals in the spring. Females lay their eggs in dry sand cavities above the high tide line from April-
July. Terrapins are edible, and this characteristic contributed to their decline in the past. In the 1920’s
populations near metropolitan centers were heavily harvested to make terrapin stew (Ernst et al. 1994).
Malaclemys terrapin macrospilota, the ornate diamondback terrapin ranges from Florida Bay to the
Florida panhandle. Malaclemys terrapin pileata, the Mississippi diamondback terrapin, ranges from the
Florida panhandle to western Louisiana. Malaclemys terrapin littoralis, the Texas diamondback terrapin
ranges from western Louisiana to western Texas (Ernst et al. 1994).
Species, Plant
1. Chloris texensis. Common Name: Texas windmill-grass
A tufted perennial grass, 2.5-5 dm tall, with seed heads resembling windmill blades. A Texas endemic
that is severely threatened by habitat destruction due to urban and suburban development (occurs near
Houston). Occurs on sandy to sandy loam soils in relatively bare areas in coastal prairie grassland
remnants. Also occasionally on roadsides. Sometimes associated with 2 other coastal prairie endemics -
prairie dawn (Hymenoxys texana) and Houston machaeranthera (Machaeranthera aurea) - in slightly
saline soils.
43
2. Halodule beaudettei. Common Name: Shoalgrass
A submersed, perennial grasslike plant, occurs mainly in tropical marine environments (Correll and
Johnston 1979). In salt water bays of Texas Gulf Coast, the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Coast.
Foraging habitat for redhead ducks.
3. Hymenoxys texana. Common Name: Texas prairie dawn
A delicate annual herb, 5-15 cm high, with small yellow flower heads (only the disc flowers are readily
visible) in bloom March-early April. Occurs on poorly drained, sparsely vegetated areas ("slick spots") at
the bases of small mounds (mima or pimple mounds) in open grassland or in almost barren areas. Soils
are slightly saline, sticky when wet and powdery when dry. Sometimes associated with other Texas Gulf
Coastal Plain endemics such as Texas windmill-grass (Chloris texensis) and Houston machaeranthera
(Machaeranthera aurea). Endemic to the coastal plain of Texas. Although nearly 50 populations are
known for this species, almost all are threatened by development from the expanding city of Houston.
Some sites have been destroyed within a year of their discovery.
4. Liatris bracteata. Common Name: Bracted gayfeather
Occupies remnant coastal prairie mid-grass grasslands on clayey to silty soils. Purple flowers, 10-14-
flowered heads, blooms about October. Known in Harris, Galveston, Matagorda Counties (Correll and
Johnston 1979).
5. Ruppia maritima. Common Name: Widgeon grass
Submerged, aquatic, perennial. Occurs on Gulf Coast and in saline (< 10 ppt) areas of ponds, rivers, and
marshes in the interior (Correll and Johnston 1979).
6. Thurovia triflora, Threeflower broomweed
An annual herb, 1-3 dm tall, that is highly branched, giving the plant a broom-like appearance. Leaves are
tiny. Flower heads are borne in profusion and are rayless, cream-colored or pale yellow, and bristly.
Blooms September-November. Occurs in coastal prairie grasslands, in sparsely vegetated spots with
clayey to silty, occasionally somewhat saline soils. Endemic to the coastal plain of southeastern Texas.
Fewer than 20 occurrences are known. Habitat destruction, due to rapidly expanding urban areas and the
oil and gas industry, is a threat.
7. Willkommia texana. Common Name: Texas willkommia
Willkommia texana var. texana is the only member of this small genus (4 species) in the United States.
Endemic to Texas. Occurs on calcareous clay-loam in southeast Texas and the northern Rio Grande Plains
(Correll and Johnston 1979). The other variety, W. texana var. stolonifera, occurs in northern Argentina.
44
Appendix F: Stakeholders and Potential Partners
Stakeholders in any decision-making process are individuals or groups who may affect or be affected by
the decisions. Some planned Conservancy actions could have real or perceived negative effects on local
stakeholders, and such effects should be carefully balanced with the benefits of those actions. Part of the
Conservancy’s purpose here is to foster sustainable local economies; therefore, viability of local
communities is a part of our mission here. Also, ignoring the needs and perceptions of stakeholders may
lead to programmatic failures that impede or prohibit conservation of the biological resources that brought
us to the West Galveston Bay Conservation Area. Because much work will involve areas over which The
Conservancy has little or no formal control, stakeholder support will be crucial.
Below is a list of potential conservation partners for this area. These groups have an active interest or role
in one or more of the conservation issues that the Conservancy plans to address. Many of these groups—
or their members--are stakeholders as well. Some of these groups may be helpful in grassroots
conservation and information gathering efforts. For scientific data, the educational/research institutions
may be most helpful. For education and community outreach, consider educational institutions, some
conservation organizations, and some natural resource agencies (e.g., Agricultural Extension). Political
issues may be best addressed by citizen civic groups and institutionalized political/civic groups.
Guidelines notwithstanding, all partnership possibilities should be investigated for a given project; help
may lie in unlikely places.
Educational/ Research Institutions
1. University of Texas Marine Science Institute Natural Resource Agencies, Government
2. Center for Coastal Studies/TAMU-CC Programs
3. Estuarine Research Federation 1. Texas General Land Office
4. Texas Wetland Information Network "Wet 2. Texas Parks & Wildlife
Net" 3. Texas Cooperative Extension
5. Harte Gulf of Mexico Marine Science 4. Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Center Commission
6. Galveston Bay Information Network 5. US Fish & Wildlife Service
6. Corp of Engineers
Conservation Organizations 7. Bureau of Reclamation
1. Galveston Bay Foundation 8. Natural Resource Conservation Service
2. Ducks Unlimited 9. Environmental Protection Agency Gulf of
3. Adopt-A-Wetland Mexico Program
4. Coastal Conservation Association of Texas 10. Galveston Bay National Estuary Program
5. Houston Audubon Society
6. Sierra Club - Houston
Institutionalized Political/Civic Bodies
Civic Groups 1. County government
1. Rotary clubs 2. Galveston, Houston, other city governments
2. Lions clubs 3. Houston-Galveston Area Council
45